Computerized method and system for accumulating liability estimates

ABSTRACT

Methods and systems for providing vehicle accident information to a computer system are provided. In one embodiment, an impact point of a vehicle accident may be provided to the computer system via a graphical user interface. The computer system may include a memory. The memory may have sets of characteristics regarding one or more past or theoretical accidents. In an embodiment, at least one characteristic in the sets of characteristics may be an impact point. The computer system may display one or more of the impact points in the memory as a graphical image on the graphical user interface. A user may select an impact point of the vehicle accident from the graphical user interface.

PRIORITY CLAIM

This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No.60/237,744 entitled “Computerized Method of Liability Assessment for aMotor Vehicle Accident,” filed Oct. 2, 2000.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention generally relates to estimation of liability in anaccident. Certain embodiments relate to computer-implemented systems andmethods for estimating liability in a motor vehicle accident throughanalysis of characteristics of motor vehicle accidents.

2. Description of the Related Art

A typical motor vehicle accident claims organization may face a numberof challenges in processing claims. Some of these challenges may includeassessment of liability, threat of litigation, and experience level ofclaims adjusters. A motor vehicle accident claims organization may addvalue to the liability assessment process by producing a solution thatenhances the liability assessment process and increases theeffectiveness of the claims adjuster.

Assessment of liability is one important challenge facing a claimsorganization. It is believed that a large percentage of motor vehicleaccident claims may be assessed at 100% liability against the insuredwhen the claimant may actually share in the fault. While it may bedifficult to pinpoint exact reasons for this practice among claimsadjusters, several factors influencing the tendency to assess 100%liability against the insured may include, but are not limited to,ineffective negotiation, large case loads, inadequate time toeffectively assess liability, and a desire to settle claims quickly toavoid litigation.

Considering the litigious nature of claimants, and the presence ofclaimant counsel during negotiations, claims adjusters may need torigorously investigate characteristics of a motor vehicle accidentscene, duties of the insured, and contributing actions of the claimantbefore assessing liability.

The experience level of claims adjusters may typically be low due to alack of longevity in such a position. Over the years, a dramaticshortening of the training regimen for most new claims adjusters mayreduce the effectiveness of claims adjusters. In addition, the lack ofexperienced claims adjusters available to advise and teach new claimsadjusters worsens the situation. Furthermore, new claims adjusters maynot be as knowledgeable in claims adjusting practices and the laws oftheir jurisdiction, as are senior claims adjusters, and consequentlythey may make “best guess” assessments. Therefore, a lack of trained andexperienced claims adjusters may tend to produce an inadequate and/orinequitable assessment process.

Accordingly, it may be advantageous to provide a system and method toassess fault or liability in motor vehicle accidents by relying onexpert knowledge collected from experienced claims adjusters regardingthe influence of multiple characteristics of a motor vehicle accidentproportional to the liability of the claimant and the insured.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

An embodiment of the present invention relates to a computer-implementedmethod for estimating liability in an accident.

In one embodiment, liability estimation in a vehicle accident may bebased on multiple characteristics that describe the accident.Characteristics that describe either a real, a past, or a theoreticalaccident may include but are not limited to, roadway configuration,accident type, traffic controls at the vehicle accident scene, right ofway, and impact points of each motor vehicle. The right of way may beestablished from real characteristics of a vehicle accident andquestions about the real characteristics. At least one of the realcharacteristics may include: roadway configuration, accident type, rightof way, or traffic control. Alternatively, a claims adjuster may specifythe right of way.

The real set of characteristics may be compared to past or theoreticalcharacteristics to determine a set of matching characteristics. Theliability for the real accident may be based on an estimate of liabilityassociated with the matching set of past or theoretical characteristics.The estimated liability for the real accident determined in this way maybe a base liability.

The liabilities associated with the characteristics of the past ortheoretical accident may be associated with an impact group in additionto other characteristics of a real accident. An impact group may includea pair of impact points for a past or theoretical accident. A pair ofimpact points may include an impact point for each of two vehiclesinvolved in an accident. Each pair of impact points may be associatedwith two values of base liability: a lower bound of liability and anupper bound of liability. One set of values may correspond to onevehicle with the right of way, and the other set of values maycorrespond to the other vehicle having the right of way. Each of thepairs of impact points in a given impact group may have the same baseliability and lower and upper bound of liability.

Effects on the liability due to factors specific to the vehicle, driver,and environment may be taken into account by identifying specificfactors that may be relevant to the real accident. Factors for past ortheoretical accidents may be associated with estimates of a contributionto liability. An estimate of the contribution of the factors toliability in the real accident may be determined by associating thefactors relevant to the real accident with the estimates of thecontribution of the factors for the past or theoretical accidents.

The contribution of the factors to the liability may also be adjusted.The adjustments may take into account sets of characteristicscorresponding to the real accident and/or the preference of a claimsorganization. A situational weight (i.e., an adjustment related to thecharacteristics of a specific accident) may be based on knowledgeobtained from experienced claims adjusters. Alternatively, thesituational weight may be inferred from answers to a series of questionsrelating to the factor and accident.

The individual factors may be adjusted by a ranking factor that accountsfor the preference of the claims organization. Furthermore, the sum ofthe contribution of the factors to liability may be adjusted by a factorinfluence that may also account for the preference of a claimsorganization.

The contribution of a factor may be so significant that it may benecessary to perform a further adjustment. Such a factor may adjust theliability beyond the lower and upper bounds defined for the liability.The contribution of the factor may be ignored and an absolute liabilityvalue may be assigned to be the liability estimate.

The liability might be expressed as a range rather than a single value.The range may be created using a range radius. The range radius may be apercentage value that may be added to and subtracted from the finalliability to create the range.

A knowledge acquisition utility may be used to determine impact groupsfor a given set of characteristics of a past or theoretical accident. Animpact group may be a collection of pairs of impact points. Each of thepairs of impact points in the impact group may have the same liabilityand lower and upper bounds of liability. Experienced claims adjustersmay use the knowledge acquisition utility to determine the number ofimpact groups for each set of characteristics and the impact point pairsin each impact group.

A claims organization may employ experienced claims adjusters to use atuning utility to estimate characteristics and properties of past ortheoretical accidents such as base liabilities and lower and upperbounds of liabilities. Characteristics and properties may be enteredinto a knowledge acquisition utility associated with the tuning utility.The user may then run pre-configured test scenarios, analyze theresults, and refine the characteristics and properties as necessary. Theprocedure may be repeated until the user is satisfied.

A computer-implemented method for estimating liability in a vehicleaccident may include several steps. The user may provide to a computersystem claim data regarding the vehicle accident in a graphical userinterface. The user may provide to a computer system data for eachvehicle involved in a vehicle accident. The user may provide dataregarding characteristics of the vehicle accident. To assist the user inproviding data regarding characteristics of the vehicle accident, thecomputer system may display graphical representations of thecharacteristics such as the roadway configurations, accident types, andimpact points. The user may identify discords within the entered data.The user may determine a most likely set of characteristics associatedwith the real accident. As needed, the user may consult a legalreference system to determine legal information specific to thejurisdiction in which the accident occurred. The user may be providedwith an assessment report that summarizes the estimate of liability,data used to determine the estimate, and negotiating points regardingthe estimate.

The assessment of liability in a vehicle accident may involve analysisof multiple statements of the description of an accident. In oneembodiment, the consistency between different witness statements may beassessed. A graphical user interface used for estimating liability maybe used to collect information from witness statements. The computersystem may compare details given in each witness description. The systemmay present the results of the comparison in tabular form, listing foreach party, its version of the detail described. Details withinconsistent versions may be noted in the tabulation of results.

In one embodiment for analysis of witness statements, a graphical userinterface for estimating liability may be combined with accidentreconstruction methodology to assess the credibility of details inwitness accident descriptions. Accident reconstruction software may beapplied to determine details relating to speed, time, and distance ofthe vehicles involved in the accident. The credibility of a witnessstatement may be evaluated according to its consistency with the resultsof the accident reconstruction software.

In one embodiment, a graphical user interface for estimating liabilitymay be combined with a credibility assessment method to create areliable accident description. The details relevant to the accident maybe tested by a credibility assessment method such as accidentreconstruction software. The most credible version of the details maythen be combined into a single, reliable version of an accidentdescription.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

A better understanding of the present invention may be obtained when thefollowing detailed description of preferred embodiments is considered inconjunction with the following drawings, in which:

FIG. 1 depicts an embodiment of a network diagram of a wide area networksuitable for implementing various embodiments;

FIG. 2 depicts an embodiment of a computer system suitable forimplementing various embodiments;

FIG. 3 depicts a flowchart of an embodiment of a liability estimationprocess;

FIG. 4 is a diagram representing accident types according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 5 is a diagram representing roadway configurations according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 6 is a roadway configuration/accident type matrix of applicabilityaccording to one embodiment;

FIG. 7 a is a flowchart for determining the right of way according toone embodiment;

FIG. 7 b is a group of flowcharts corresponding to the flowchart in FIG.5 a according to one embodiment;

FIG. 8 a is a diagram illustrating impact points on a motor vehicleaccording to one embodiment;

FIG. 8 b is a table of impact groups for roadway configuration/accidenttype combinations according to one embodiment;

FIG. 9 a includes tables illustrating a first method of assessing thecontribution of factors to the liability according to one embodiment;

FIG. 9 b includes a table illustrating a second method of assessing thecontribution of factors to the liability according to one embodiment;

FIG. 9 c includes a table illustrating a third method of assessing thecontribution of factors to the liability according to one embodiment;

FIG. 10 a is a flowchart for assessing the contribution of alcohol usageto liability in a motor vehicle accident according to a firstembodiment;

FIG. 10 b is a flowchart for assessing the contribution of alcohol usageto liability in a motor vehicle accident according to a secondembodiment;

FIG. 11 is a flowchart for assessing the contribution of a constructionzone to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 12 is a flowchart for assessing the contribution of correctivelenses to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 13 is a flowchart for assessing the contribution of defective,obscured, or missing traffic control to liability in a motor vehicleaccident according to one embodiment;

FIG. 14 is a flowchart for estimating the contribution of driverinattention to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 15 is a flowchart for estimating the contribution of driverinexperience to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 16 is a flowchart for estimating the contribution of taking anillicit drug to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 17 is a flowchart for estimating the contribution of taking amedication to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 18 is a flowchart for estimating the contribution of fatigue toliability in a motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment;

FIG. 19 is a flowchart for estimating the contribution of faultyequipment to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 20 a is a flowchart for estimating the contribution of followingtoo closely to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to afirst embodiment;

FIG. 20 b is a flowchart for estimating the contribution of followingtoo closely to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to asecond embodiment;

FIG. 20 c is a table for estimating the contribution of following tooclosely to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to theembodiment illustrated in FIG. 20 b;

FIG. 21 is a flowchart for estimating the contribution of headlightsbeing off to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 22 is a flowchart for estimating the contribution of high beamsbeing on to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 23 is a flowchart for estimating the contribution of illness toliability in a motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment;

FIG. 24 a is a flowchart for estimating the contribution of an improperlane change to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 24 b is a flowchart corresponding to FIG. 24 a according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 25 is a logic diagram for estimating the contribution of improperparking to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 26 is a flowchart for estimating the contribution of impropersignaling to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 27 is a flowchart for estimating the contribution of an obstructedview or glare to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 28 are flowcharts for estimating the contribution of the roadcondition to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 29 are flowcharts for estimating the contribution of the roadcharacter to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 30 are flowcharts for estimating the contribution of the roadsurface to liability in a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 31 a is a flowchart for estimating the contribution of speed toliability in a motor vehicle accident according to a first embodiment;

FIG. 31 b is a flowchart for estimating the maximum safe speed for givenroad and weather conditions according to the first embodiment;

FIG. 31 c is a table illustrating the contribution of speed to a motorvehicle accident according to the first embodiment;

FIG. 32 a is a flowchart for estimating the contribution of speed toliability in a motor vehicle accident according to a second embodiment;

FIG. 32 b is a flowchart for estimating the maximum safe speed for givenroad and weather conditions according to the second embodiment;

FIG. 32 c is a table illustrating the contribution of speed to a motorvehicle accident according to the second embodiment;

FIGS. 33 a, 33 b, 33 c, 33 d, 33 e, and 33 f are flowcharts forestimating the contribution of a sudden stop or swerving to liability ina motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment;

FIG. 34 is a flowchart for estimating the contribution of taillights orbrake lights being off when they should have been on to liability in amotor vehicle accident according to one embodiment;

FIG. 35 is a flowchart for estimating the contribution of visibility toliability in a motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment;

FIG. 36 is a flowchart and table for estimating the contribution ofdisobeyed signs or markings to liability in a motor vehicle accidentaccording to one embodiment;

FIG. 37 illustrates the adjustment of a liability estimate by the factorinfluence according to one embodiment;

FIG. 38 is a screen shot of a window from a Knowledge Acquisitionutility or tuning utility for selecting a roadway configuration/accidenttype combination according to one embodiment;

FIG. 39 is a screen shot of an editing combination window from aKnowledge Acquisition utility or tuning utility according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 40 is a screen shot of a window for editing the estimate effect ofa factor according to one embodiment;

FIG. 41 is a screen shot of a Knowledge Acquisition utility or tuningutility for displaying pairs of impact points according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 42 is a screen shot of a Claim Data window according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 43 is a screen shot of a Vehicle Information frame according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 44 is a screen shot of an Additional Information frame according toone embodiment;

FIG. 45 is a screen shot of a Parties Information frame according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 46 is a screen shot of a Legal Reference window according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 47 is a screen shot of a Right of Way data frame according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 48 is a screen shot of a Traffic Controls data frame according toone embodiment;

FIG. 49 is a screen shot of a Impact Points data frame according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 50 is a screen shot of a Discords Report frame according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 51 is a screen shot of a Factors Input frame according to oneembodiment;

FIG. 52 is a screen shot of a Conflict Identification frame according toone embodiment;

FIG. 53 is a screen shot of a Review frame according to one embodiment;

FIG. 54 is a screen shot of a Manual Assessment window according to oneembodiment; and

FIG. 55 is a screen shot of the Consultation Report window according toone embodiment.

While the invention is susceptible to various modifications andalternative forms, specific embodiments thereof are shown by way ofexample in the drawings and will herein be described in detail. Itshould be understood, however, that the drawings and detaileddescription thereto are not intended to limit the invention to theparticular form disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is tocover all modifications, equivalents and alternatives falling within thespirit and scope of the present invention as defined by the appendedclaims.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SEVERAL EMBODIMENTS

FIG. 1 illustrates a wide area network (“WAN”) according to oneembodiment. WAN 102 may be a network that spans a relatively largegeographical area. The Internet is an example of WAN 102. WAN 102typically includes a plurality of computer systems that may beinterconnected through one or more networks. Although one particularconfiguration is shown in FIG. 1, WAN 102 may include a variety ofheterogeneous computer systems and networks that may be interconnectedin a variety of ways and that may run a variety of softwareapplications.

One or more local area networks (“LANs”) 104 may be coupled to WAN 102.LAN 104 may be a network that spans a relatively small area. Typically,LAN 104 may be confined to a single building or group of buildings. Eachnode (i.e., individual computer system or device) on LAN 104 may haveits own CPU with which it may execute programs, and each node may alsobe able to access data and devices anywhere on LAN 104. LAN 104, thus,may allow many users to share devices (e.g., printers) and data storedon file servers. LAN 104 may be characterized by a variety of types oftopology (i.e., the geometric arrangement of devices on the network), ofprotocols (i.e., the rules and encoding specifications for sending data,and whether the network uses a peer-to-peer or client/serverarchitecture), and of media (e.g., twisted-pair wire, coaxial cables,fiber optic cables, and/or radio waves).

Each LAN 104 may include a plurality of interconnected computer systemsand optionally one or more other devices such as one or moreworkstations 110 a, one or more personal computers 112 a, one or morelaptop or notebook computer systems 114, one or more server computersystems 116, and one or more network printers 118. As illustrated inFIG. 1, an example LAN 104 may include one of each computer systems 110a, 112 a, 114, and 116, and one printer 118. LAN 104 may be coupled toother computer systems and/or other devices and/or other LANs 104through WAN 102.

One or more mainframe computer systems 120 may be coupled to WAN 102. Asshown, mainframe 120 may be coupled to a storage device or file server124 and mainframe terminals 122 a, 122 b, and 122 c. Mainframe terminals122 a, 122 b, and 122 c may access data stored in the storage device orfile server 124 coupled to or included in mainframe computer system 120.

WAN 102 may also include computer systems connected to WAN 102individually and not through LAN 104 for purposes of example,workstation 110 b and personal computer 112 b. For example, WAN 102 mayinclude computer systems that may be geographically remote and connectedto each other through the Internet.

FIG. 2 illustrates an embodiment of computer system 150 that may besuitable for implementing various embodiments of a system and method forassessment of liability in a motor vehicle accident by consideringcharacteristics that describe such an accident combined with expertknowledge collected from experienced claims adjusters. Each computersystem 150 typically includes components such as CPU 152 with anassociated memory medium such as floppy disks 160. The memory medium maystore program instructions for computer programs. The programinstructions may be executable by CPU 152. Computer system 150 mayfurther include a display device such as monitor 154, an alphanumericinput device such as keyboard 156, and a directional input device suchas mouse 158. Computer system 150 may be operable to execute thecomputer programs to implement assessment of liability in a motorvehicle accident by considering characteristics that describe such anaccident combined with expert knowledge collected from experiencedclaims adjusters.

Computer system 150 may include a memory medium on which computerprograms according to various embodiments may be stored. The term“memory medium” is intended to include an installation medium, e.g., aCD-ROM or floppy disks 160, a computer system memory such as DRAM, SRAM,EDO RAM, Rambus RAM, etc., or a non-volatile memory such as a magneticmedia, e.g., a hard drive or optical storage. The memory medium may alsoinclude other types of memory or combinations thereof. In addition, thememory medium may be located in a first computer which executes theprograms or may be located in a second different computer which connectsto the first computer over a network. In the latter instance, the secondcomputer may provide the program instructions to the first computer forexecution. Also, computer system 150 may take various forms such as apersonal computer system, mainframe computer system, workstation,network appliance, Internet appliance, personal digital assistant(“PDA”), television system or other device. In general, the term“computer system” may refer to any device having a processor thatexecutes instructions from a memory medium.

The memory medium may store a software program or programs operable toimplement a method for assessment of liability in a motor vehicleaccident by considering characteristics that describe such an accidentcombined with expert knowledge collected from experienced claimsadjusters. The software program(s) may be implemented in various ways,including, but not limited to, procedure-based techniques,component-based techniques, and/or object-oriented techniques, amongothers. For example, the software programs may be implemented usingActiveX controls, C++ objects, JavaBeans, Microsoft Foundation Classes(“MFC”), browser-based applications (e.g., Java applets), traditionalprograms, or other technologies or methodologies, as desired. A CPU suchas host CPU 152 executing code and data from the memory medium mayinclude a means for creating and executing the software program orprograms according to the embodiments described herein.

Various embodiments may also include receiving or storing instructionsand/or data implemented in accordance with the foregoing descriptionupon a carrier medium. Suitable carrier media may include storage mediaor memory media such as magnetic or optical media, e.g., disk or CD-ROM,as well as signals such as electrical, electromagnetic, or digitalsignals, may be conveyed via a communication medium such as networks 102and/or 104 and/or a wireless link.

FIG. 3 is a flowchart of an embodiment of a liability estimation processfor vehicle accidents according to one embodiment. As used herein, theterm “liability” generally refers to an amount for which a person orparty is responsible or obligated. In an embodiment, liability in anaccident may be expressed in a ratio or percentage (e.g., there is atotal of 100% liability that can be attributed to persons, parties, orother factors such as weather, etc.). In another embodiment, liabilitymay be expressed as a dollar amount.

An embodiment may apply to accidents involving many different types ofvehicles (e.g., automobiles, light trucks, heavy trucks, motor cycles,school buses, vans, commercial trucks, tractor-trailers, motor homes,recreational vehicles, commercial buses, farming related vehicles,tractors). It is anticipated that an embodiment may apply to accidentsinvolving other types of transportation craft such as boats andairplanes. It is also anticipated that an embodiment may apply to othertypes of accidents such as premises liability, which may include slip,trip and fall, dog bite, food poisoning, etc.

When two or more vehicles are involved in a motor vehicle accident,typically an estimation of liability is needed in order to settle aclaim that a claimant may make against an insured. As used herein, theterm “claimant” generally refers to a party involved in an accident thatseeks compensation for bodily injury and/or property damage from theclaims organization of an insurance carrier of another party, theinsured, involved in the accident. As used herein, the term “insured”generally refers to a party involved in an accident who holds aninsurance policy with a claims organization of an insurance carrier thatobligates the claims organization of an insurance carrier to compensatea third party for the portion of the damages suffered by the third partythat was the fault of the insured party in the accident.

The estimation of liability may be a complicated process involvingmultiple characteristics. Gathering the characteristics may typically bea task completed by a claims adjuster. As used herein, the term “claimsadjuster” generally refers to an individual employed by a claimsorganization of an insurance carrier who assesses the liability of eachparty involved in an accident. When the claims adjuster has collectedsome or all of the information available, the claims adjuster may enterthe information into a computer system. Examples of data input screensthat may be suitable for entering accident information into a computerare shown in FIGS. 42-55.

The claims adjuster may provide to a computer system a real set ofcharacteristics relating to a real accident. As used herein the term“real characteristics” generally refers to characteristics that describean accident being considered for liability assessment. The computersystem may have access to a memory that contains sets of characteristicsthat correspond to past or theoretical accidents. As used herein, theterm “past accident” generally refers to an accident that occurred inthe past of which certain characteristics may be stored in a memory of acomputer system. As used herein, the term “theoretical accident”generally refers to an accident that might occur. The computer systemmay be configured to provide an estimate of liability for each set ofcharacteristics in the memory.

The computer system may correlate the real set of characteristics fromthe real accident to the sets of characteristics in the memory todetermine a set of characteristics that most closely approximates ormatches the real set of characteristics. The computer system may thenuse the estimates of liability for the sets of characteristics in thememory to estimate liability for the real accident. It is anticipatedthat one or more of the sets of characteristics may be used to estimateliability.

FIG. 3 provides an overview of an embodiment of a liability estimationprocess based on multiple characteristics that may describe a vehicleaccident. In step 301, a claims adjuster may identify a set of realcharacteristics relating to a real accident. A set of realcharacteristics may include, but are not limited to, roadwayconfiguration, accident type, and impact points of each motor vehicle.Additionally, the real set of characteristics may include identificationof traffic controls at the scene of the accident. Screen shotsillustrating examples of providing each of these characteristics to acomputer system may be found as follows: roadway configurations in FIG.47, accident types in FIG. 47, traffic controls in FIG. 48, and impactpoints in FIG. 49.

In step 302, the right of way (“ROW”) may be established by a computersystem from one or more of the real characteristics. Additionally, thecomputer system may ask one or more questions about the real accident toestablish the ROW. At least one of the real characteristics may includea roadway configuration, an accident type, or a traffic control. FIGS. 7a and 7 b show flowcharts that illustrate an embodiment of right of waydetermination. Alternatively, the claims adjuster may specify the ROW.

In step 303, a base liability may be estimated from a table or databaseof characteristics that contain sets of characteristics that correspondto past or theoretical accidents. As used herein, the term “baseliability” generally refers to the portion of the liability that isindependent of factors specific to condition of vehicles in theaccident, condition of drivers in the accident, actions of drivers inthe accident, and environmental conditions common to vehicles in theaccident. A computer system may have access to a memory that containssets of characteristics such as roadway configuration, accident type,traffic control, right of way, and impact points of the vehiclesinvolved in the vehicle accidents that correspond to past or theoreticalaccidents. Each of the sets of characteristics for past or theoreticalaccidents may be associated with an estimate of base liability. FIGS. 37to 41 are screen shots of a knowledge acquisition utility and a tuningutility that may be utilized to input base liability information into acomputer system. The utilities may be used to create a database of setsof characteristics that correspond to past or theoretical accidents.

The computer system may compare the real set of characteristicsestablished or identified in the earlier steps (e.g., roadwayconfiguration, accident type, traffic control, right of way, impactpoints) to the sets of characteristics relating to past or theoreticalaccidents to determine a nearest matching set of characteristics amongthe sets of characteristics relating to past or theoretical accidents.The computer may then determine an estimate of liability for the realaccident based on the estimate of liability associated with the nearestmatching set of characteristics among the sets of characteristicsrelating to past or theoretical accidents. It is anticipated that acomputer system may be configured to provide an estimate of liabilityusing at least one of the sets of characteristics that correspond topast or theoretical accidents.

In step 304, the claims adjuster may identify to the computer system oneor more factors corresponding to a real accident. The factors mayinclude characteristics specific to condition of vehicles in theaccident, condition of drivers in the accident, actions of drivers inthe accident, or environmental conditions common to vehicles in theaccident. The computer system may have access to a memory that containscorresponding factors associated with one or more past or theoreticalaccidents. One or more of the factors associated with past ortheoretical accidents may be associated with an estimate of the effecton liability of the factor. The computer system may compare the factorsassociated with the real accident to factors associated with past ortheoretical accidents to determine one or more nearest matching factors.Estimates of the effect on liability of the determined nearest matchingfactors may be used to estimate the effect on liability of the factorsassociated with the real accident. FIG. 51 is a screen shot showing agraphical user interface for entering conditional factors into acomputer system.

In some embodiments, the estimate of the effect on liability of eachfactor may be adjustable. For example, the adjustments may be due tosets of characteristics corresponding to the real accident, thepreference of a claims organization, knowledge of an experienced claimsadjuster, or requirements of a jurisdiction in which the accident tookplace. FIGS. 10 a through 36 illustrate several embodiments of estimatesof the effect on liability of several factors which may be associatedwith theoretical accidents. It is anticipated that there are othermethods than those shown in and described in reference to FIGS. 10 a to36 to estimate effects on liability due to the contribution of variousfactors.

In step 305, any necessary adjustments to the base liability estimatedin step 303 due to contributions from factors estimated in 304 may bemade. One example of a necessary adjustment may be an Absolute LiabilityValue. As used herein, the term “Absolute Liability Value” (“ALV”) isgenerally defined as a factor that makes a significant contribution toliability such as negating the effect of other factors orcharacteristics associated with the accident. An ALV may also be definedas a factor that may adjust the liability beyond the lower and upperbounds defined for the liability. However, an ALV may not always shiftliability to the other party. For example, an ALV might simply absolveone party of liability and explain the accident as being unavoidable. Insuch a situation, the contribution of various factors andcharacteristics may be ignored and an ALV may be assigned. For example,if a person had a sudden, unforeseen heart attack that caused anaccident, the base liability might be determined to be 75 percent, butthe final liability may be set via an ALV at 0 percent because theaccident was probably unavoidable.

In step 306, all of the previously entered information may be taken intoaccount and processed. Reference to expert knowledge databases, andother static information (such as jurisdictional information) may bemade in calculating a range of liability. A range of liability may bemore suitable than a single value in negotiations between partiesregarding fault.

FIG. 4 illustrates graphical representations of various differentaccident types involving motor vehicles according to one embodiment. Thearrows represent the paths of motor vehicle A and motor vehicle B at ornear the time of the accident. Solid lines with no arrows represent theedge of a roadway. Dashed lines represent lanes. The user may select anaccident type that corresponds to the real vehicle accident as shown inthe screen shot in FIG. 47. As used herein, the term “user” generallyrefers to a claims adjuster or another individual employed by a claimsorganization. Accident types graphically represented in FIG. 4 mayinclude: (1) a rear ender, (2) a left turn crossing traffic, (3) a leftturn across traffic, (4) a left turn entering traffic, (5) a right turnentering traffic, (6) dual turns to same lane, (7) concurrent leftturns, (8) a U-turn, (9) a parked vehicle merging into traffic fromright, (10) a parked vehicle merging into traffic from left (e.g. on aone way street), (11) a merge from the left, (12) a merge from theright, (13) concurrent merges to a single lane, (14) a collision with aparked vehicle, (15) a collision while backing, (16) a head on, and (17)a straight cross traffic collision. Additionally, in some embodiments, aright turn across traffic accident type (not shown) may be represented.

FIG. 5 illustrates graphical representations of various differentroadway configurations according to one embodiment. The user may selectone of the roadway configurations that correspond to a real vehicleaccident as shown in the screen shot in FIG. 47. Roadway configurationsgraphically represented in FIG. 5 may include: (A) a two or more laneroad (including a divided road with a median that may be crossed), wherethe solid lines are the roadway and the space between is the median; (B)a four-way intersection with the lines representing the crossingroadways; (C) a T-angle intersection (the T-angle that may vary), wherethe solid lines are the roadway and where the dashed line represents thevariation of the angle of the intersection; (D) a merging of one roadwayinto another with no turns and in one direction with the arrows showingthe direction of the vehicles; (E) a curve with the lines showing theroadway; (F) a parking lot with two-way traffic where the arrows showthe direction of the vehicles, the vertical lines represent the boundaryof the parking lot, and the spaces between the horizontal linesrepresent the parking spaces; (G) a parking lot with one way trafficwhere the arrow shows the direction of the vehicles, the vertical linesrepresent the boundary of the parking lot, and the spaces between thediagonal lines represent the parking spaces; (H) a center turn lane withthe bold lines representing the boundary of the roadway, the thin linesmarking the boundary between the driving lanes and the center turn lane,and the arrows representing the direction of the center lane turns; (I)a two or more lane road divided by a physical barrier with the thickercenter line representing the physical barrier and the thinner linesrepresenting the outer boundaries of the roadway.

Alternatively, the roadway configurations of the parking lots, (F) and(G), may be represented by a single diagram, (FG), shown in FIG. 5. (FG)is the same as (F), except that the parking spaces on the right of thediagram are formed by diagonal lines. In an embodiment, (FG) may be usedto represent a parking lot of any configuration.

FIG. 6 is a matrix illustrating the applicable roadwayconfiguration/accident type combinations in liability estimationaccording to one embodiment. Accident types, (1) to (17) from FIG. 4,are listed on the vertical axis. Roadway configurations, (A) to (I) fromFIG. 5, are listed on the horizontal axis. The alternativerepresentation of the parking lots (F) and (G), (FG) is also included onthe horizontal axis.

Experienced claims adjusters may consider combinations labeled “N” to beimplausible accident scenarios and, therefore, not significant inliability assessment of motor vehicle accidents. Thus, combinationslabeled “Y” may be considered a set of theoretical accident scenarios.FIG. 38 is a screen shot of a Knowledge Acquisition Utility, which showsa matrix of roadway configuration/accident types similar to FIG. 6. InFIG. 38, the elements of the matrix labeled with a “--” indicateimplausible combinations. In the embodiment of FIG. 38, the implausiblecombinations are a subset of the combinations labeled with an “N” inFIG. 6 because the knowledge acquisition utility allows the user toconsider some implausible combinations. An example of a combinationmarked as implausible in both FIGS. 6 and 38 is D2, left turn crossingtraffic on a merge with no turns in one direction. An example of acombination that may be considered implausible in FIG. 6, but may beallowed for consideration in FIG. 38 is I16, a head on collision on a 2or more lane road divided by a physical barrier.

FIG. 7 a and 7 b depict flowcharts for determining whether vehicle A orvehicle B has the right of way in traffic according to one embodiment.As used herein, the term “right of way” generally refers to the right ofa vehicle to take precedence in traffic. The determination of right ofway may require identification of one or more of the characteristics ofthe real accident (e.g., the roadway configuration, accident type,traffic control, or jurisdiction). Additionally, determining the rightof way may require answering one or more questions concerning theaccident. Alternatively, in some embodiments, the right of way may bespecified by the user. FIG. 7 b includes flowcharts of determinationsthat appear in the flowchart in FIG. 7 a. In FIG. 7 b, the Intersectionflowchart identifies the accident types that involve intersections. ThePerpendicular Directions flowchart identifies the accident types thatinvolve vehicles approaching from perpendicular directions. In AdjusterPreference, the claims adjuster may either assign the right of way tovehicle A or B, or defer to the insurance carrier's or claimsorganization's preference.

As shown by decision point 501 in FIG. 7 a, the determination of theright of way may depend on the accident types illustrated in FIG. 4. Theright of way may be determined from the accident type alone in somecases. For example, in accident types 9 and 10, merge of a parkedvehicle, the vehicle already in traffic may have the right of way.Likewise, in accident types 11 and 12, the merge of a moving vehicle,the vehicle already in the lane may have the right of way. Thesedeterminations are shown by step 503 in which vehicle A in accident typediagrams 9, 10, 11 and 12 in FIG. 4 has the right of way. Additionally,as depicted in step 505, vehicle A may be determined to have the rightof way if vehicle A is parked (accident type 14) or vehicle B is backingup (accident type 15).

For accident type 1, decision point 507 shows that the right of way maydepend on which vehicle was ahead in the rear-ender. If vehicle B wasahead (as depicted in FIG. 4), step 511 shows that B may have the rightof way. If vehicle A was ahead, step 509 shows that A may have the rightof way. Alternatively, if it is unknown which vehicle was ahead (e.g.,due to the circumstances or severity of the accident), step 513indicates that the right of way may be undetermined. For an undeterminedright of way the base liability of each vehicle may be set at 50%.

As shown in FIG. 7 a, for accident types 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16,and 17, the first step 515 is the intersection decision point, which isdetermination of whether the accident occurred at an intersection. Theintersection flowchart is illustrated in FIG. 7 b. Decision point 582indicates that the presence of an intersection may be found from theaccident type. If the accident type is 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 17, step583 indicates that there may be an intersection. If the accident type is1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16, step 584 indicates an intersectionmay not be present. Alternately, in some embodiments, the presence of anintersection may be determined from roadway configuration informationprovided by the user. For example, roadway configurations A, E, F, G, Iand FG may indicate that in intersection may not be present. Roadwayconfigurations B, C, D, and H may indicate that an intersection may bepresent.

FIG. 7 a shows that if there is no intersection, the next step isdecision point 519. Decision point 519 is the determination of whichvehicle left the lane it was in. As shown by steps 521 and 523, thevehicle that remained in the lane it was in may have the right of way.Alternatively, if both vehicles left their lanes, step 525 indicatesthat the right of way may be undetermined. In this case, the baseliability may be assessed at 50% for each vehicle.

FIG. 7 a shows that when there is an intersection, the next step isdecision point 517 which is a determination of whether there is atraffic control for either vehicle A or B. If not, decision point 529indicates that the right of way may depend on which vehicle left thelane it was in. Steps 531, 533, and 535 are analogous to steps 521, 523,and 525. However, if neither vehicle left the lane it was in, step 525indicates that the vehicle that controls the intersection may have theright of way as shown by flowchart 537. The vehicle that controls theintersection may be determined by flowchart 537 shown in FIG. 7 b.Decision point 589 in FIG. 7 b is the first step in determining whocontrols the intersection. Decision point 589 asks which vehicle arrivedat the intersection first. As shown by steps 590 and 591, the vehiclethat arrived first at an intersection may control it. If neither vehiclearrived first, decision point 592 asks which vehicle is to the right.Steps 593 and 594 show that the vehicle to the right may control theintersection.

As illustrated in FIG. 7 a, if the answer to decision point 517 is yes,then decision point 527 is next which asks the type of traffic control.Decision point 539, which is reached if the traffic control is a sign,asks if the sign is obscured or down. If the sign is obscured or down,step 543 shows that right of way may be determined by the adjuster.Adjuster determination is shown by the flowchart in FIG. 7 b. Decisionpoint 585 in FIG. 7 b is the adjuster's answer for which vehicle, A orB, has the right of way, which is shown as steps 586 and 587. If theadjuster does not have an answer, then the right of way may be thecarrier's preference as shown by step 588.

However, if the answer to decision point 539 is no, decision point 545asks which vehicle had a non-yielding traffic control. Step 547 showsthat if A had the non-yielding traffic control, then B may have theright of way. Step 549 shows that if B had the non-yielding trafficcontrol, then A may have the right of way. Step 551 applies if neither Anor B has the non-yielding traffic control. The right of way may bedetermined by the vehicle that controls the intersection, which may bedetermined by the flowchart shown in FIG. 7 b.

Alternatively, if the answer to decision point 527 is a traffic light,then decision point 541 asks if the light was out for both vehicles. Ifthe light was out for both, then right of way may be determined by whocontrols the intersection, which is shown in FIG. 7 b. If the answer todecision point 541 is no, decision point 555 asks if the light was outfor only one vehicle. If the light was out for only one vehicle, thenright of way may be found from adjuster determination, which is given bythe flowchart in FIG. 7 b. However, if the answer to decision point 555is no, decision point 559 is reached. Decision point 559 asks whichvehicle has a non-yielding traffic control. As step 561 shows, if A hasthe non-yielding traffic control and B does not, then B may have theright of way. As step 563 shows, if B has the non-yielding trafficcontrol and A does not, then A may have the right of way. If neither Anor B has the non-yielding traffic control, then decision point 565 isreached, which inquires whether both had a red light. If the answer todecision point 565 is yes, the right of way may be undetermined, asshown in step 567. In this case, the base liability may be assessed at50% for each vehicle. If the answer to decision point 565 is no, thenright of way may be determined by the vehicle that controls theintersection. The vehicle that controls the intersection may bedetermined by the flowchart shown in FIG. 7 b. If both vehicles indecision point 559 have non-yielding traffic controls, then decisionpoint 571 is reached. Decision point 571 asks whether the vehicles wereapproaching in perpendicular directions, which may be determined fromthe flowchart in FIG. 7 b. As shown by decision point 595 in FIG. 7 b,whether the vehicles were approaching in perpendicular directions may bedetermined from the accident types shown in FIG. 4. Step 596 shows thatthe answer is yes if the accident type is 3, 4, 5, or 17. Step 597 showsthat the answer is no if the accident type is 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15, or 16. If the vehicles were approaching in perpendiculardirections, then right of way may be determined by the adjuster.Adjuster determination may be given by the flowchart in FIG. 7 b. If thevehicles were not approaching in a perpendicular direction, thendecision point 529 shows that the right of way again may depend on whichvehicle left the lane it was in. Steps 577, 579, and 581 are analogousto steps 521, 523, and 525.

An example of a screen shot of user input of a traffic control is shownin FIG. 48. An example of a screen shot of user input of thejurisdiction is shown in FIG. 42. Jurisdiction may include each of thefifty states of the United States and territories of the United States.In another embodiment, jurisdiction may include any governmental entitywith traffic laws, such as a foreign country. The vehicle that does nothave the right of way may generally be referred to as the “tortfeasor”(“TF”) and the vehicle that has the right of way may generally bereferred to as the “other party” (“OP”). For the case of an undeterminedright of way, both parties may be considered the “other party” whendetermining the effect of one or more factors on the liability.

In an embodiment, a traffic control may be considered as “yielding” or“nonyielding.” As used herein, the term “yielding traffic control”generally refers to a traffic control that informs a driver that he orshe must give way (or stop) for other traffic. As used herein, the term“nonyielding traffic control” generally refers to a traffic control thatinforms the driver that he or she may proceed. Traffic controls may befurther divided into three categories: pure, other explicit controllingdevices, and markings and signs. Yielding pure traffic controls mayinclude, but are not limited to, no traffic control present, a redlight, a stop sign, a yield sign, a flashing red light, or a policeofficer signaling stop. Nonyielding pure traffic controls may include,but are not limited to, a yellow light, a green light, a green arrowleft, a green arrow right, a flashing yellow light, or a police officersignaling proceed.

Yielding other explicit controlling devices may include a crossing guardsignaling stop, a flagger signaling stop, another person signaling stop,and a school bus loading or unloading. Nonyielding other explicitcontrolling devices may include a crossing guard signaling proceed, aflagger signaling proceed, or another person signaling proceed. In someembodiments, emergency vehicle may also be yielding traffic controlsdepending upon the jurisdiction.

Whether a traffic control in the pure category overrides a selection inthe other explicit controlling devices category may depend upon thejurisdiction. For example, whether a vehicle with a green light mustyield to an approaching emergency vehicle may vary depending on thejurisdiction.

In one embodiment, a user may only select one traffic control from eachcategory. The user may not have to select a traffic control from morethan one category. If a user does select more than one, then the usermay select which category should be considered as the governing control.A secondary traffic control may be listed in a report as informationalonly.

Markings and signs such as lane markings may also be traffic controls.In some embodiments, the presence of markings or signs may be noted forinformational purposes. For example the presence of a disobeyed markingmay be noted for use as a negotiation or talking point rather than beingused to estimate liability or right of way. The markings and signs mayinclude, but are not limited to: a one way sign or marking, a do notenter sign or marking, a no passing sign or marking, a no parking zonesign or marking, a straight only sign or marking, a left turn only signor marking, a right turn only sign or marking, no U turn sign ormarking, a no right turn on red sign, cones and/or barricades, a solidyellow line, a solid white line, or a no stopping sign or marking.

FIG. 8 a is an illustration of a graphical representation of the impactpoints on a vehicle according to one embodiment. FIG. 8 a is a graphicalrepresentation of a vehicle that is divided into twelve sections:801—right front corner, 802—right front fender, 803—right middle,804—right rear quarter-panel, 805—right rear corner, 806—rear middle,807—left rear corner, 808—left rear quarter-panel, 809—left middle,810—left front fender, 811—left front corner, and 812—front middle. Eachof the labeled sections may correspond to a possible point of impact ina motor vehicle accident.

FIG. 8 b is a table showing impact groups for combinations of roadwayconfiguration and accident type according to one embodiment. A givenroadway configuration/accident type combination may have a number ofpossible impact groups. As used herein, the term “impact group”generally refers to a collection of pairs of impact points for a past ortheoretical accidents. A pair of impact points may include the impactpoint for each of two vehicles involved in an accident. In someembodiments, each pair of impact points may be associated with sets ofliability estimate values. One set of values may correspond to vehicle Ahaving the right of way and the other set of values to vehicle B havingthe right of way. Each set of values may include a value of baseliability, a lower bound of liability, and an upper bound of liabilityfor each vehicle. Alternately, in some embodiments, each impact groupmay be associated with sets of values corresponding to base liabilityvalues. It is anticipated that there may be various ways to arrangeimpact points in impact groups.

For example, as shown in FIG. 8 b, impact points associated with theroadway configuration/accident type combination 2B (a four-wayintersection with vehicle A from top turning left and B from bottomgoing straight), may be grouped into four impact groups. A first impactgroup may include three pairs of impact points: A811B809, A811B810, andA810B808. A and B refer to motor vehicle A and motor vehicle B,respectively, and the numbers refer to points on the impact pointdiagram in FIG. 8 a. For example, the impact point pair, A811B809,corresponds to vehicle A with an impact point on the left front fender(811) and vehicle B with an impact point on the left middle (809).

In an embodiment, each of the pairs of impact points in a given impactgroup may have the same base liability and lower and upper bound ofliability. The estimation of the base liability values, lower and upperbounds of liabilities, and the impact groups may be estimated by expertclaims adjusters through a process called knowledge acquisition.

In an embodiment, the base liability and the bounds of the liability fortwo vehicles involved in an accident may be estimated for a realaccident by first specifying the roadway configuration (as shown in FIG.5), accident type (as shown in FIG. 4), and pair of impact points (asshown in FIG. 8 a) of vehicles A and B for the real accident. Thevehicle that had the right of way may be determined as shown in FIGS. 7a and 7 b. A table, like the one shown in FIG. 8 b, may be searched forthe impact group corresponding to the given roadwayconfiguration/accident type combination that contains the specified pairof impact points that correspond to a past or theoretical accident. Oncethe roadway configuration/accident type combination and impact group ofthe past or theoretical accident are known, the base liability andbounds may be extracted from a table in a database that lists the baseliabilities and bounds for each impact group for all applicable roadwayconfiguration/accident type combinations.

FIG. 9 a illustrates an embodiment of a method of estimating the effectof one or more factors on the liability. Factor adjustments may beconsidered for each vehicle based on data specific to condition ofvehicles in the accident, condition of drivers in the accident, actionsof drivers in the accident, or environmental conditions common tovehicles in the accident. Each factor may have an associated penaltyvalue that may correspond to an amount that an experienced claimsadjuster may add to the base liability when this factor is presentalone. A user may identify the presence of factors in a real accidentand provide a list of factors to the computer system.

In an embodiment, factors related to the condition of vehicles in theaccident may include the presence of faulty equipment. As used herein,the term “faulty equipment” generally refers to any vehicle equipmentmalfunction that causes an action (e.g., stuck accelerator causesunwanted acceleration), prohibits the operator from taking action (e.g.,failed braking system prevents stopping), or fails to perform an action(e.g., failed brake lights do not warn other drivers of braking). In anembodiment, factors related to environmental conditions common to thevehicle may include, but are not limited to, presence of a constructionzone, an obstructed view or glare, a road condition, a road character, aroad surface, a defective traffic control, weather or visibility. In anembodiment, the factors related to a driver's condition may include, butare not limited to, consumption of alcohol, consumption of illicitdrugs, consumption of medications, driver inattention, lack of requiredcorrective lenses, driver inexperience, driver fatigue, or driverillness. In an embodiment, factors related to a driver's actions mayinclude, but are not limited to, following too closely, driving withheadlights off, driving at an unsafe speed, a sudden stop or swerve,driving with taillights brake lights off, unsafe backing, failure totake evasive action, driving with high beams on, an improper lanechange, improper parking, or improper signaling.

FIG. 9 a is an illustration of one embodiment for estimating the effecton liability of one or more factors. The decision to apply a particularfactor in a given situation may be made by an experienced claimsadjuster. In alternate embodiments, the factor may be applied by acomputer system based on input provided by a claims adjuster. Thecomputer system may ask the claims adjuster one or more questionsregarding the accident. Based on answers provided by the claimsadjuster, the computer system may determine that one or more factorsapply.

In the embodiment depicted in FIG. 9 a, the effect of a factor on theliability may be adjusted by a situational weight for each roadwayconfiguration/accident type and vehicle. A situational weight may havefour levels: N/A (factor not applicable), low, normal, and high. Anexperienced claims adjuster may determine an appropriate situationalweight to apply. In an alternate embodiment, a computer system may beconfigured to determine an appropriate situational weight based oninformation provided by a claims adjuster. For example, in a rear-ender,a factor related to the consumption of alcohol (e.g., being drunk) maybe considered more important than it is in other types of accidents.Therefore, the situational weight may be “high” for the rear vehicle.However, whether the driver of the lead vehicle has consumed alcohol maybe irrelevant. Thus, a situational weight of “N/A” may be assigned tothe factor. Each level of the situational weight may be assigned apercentage. For example, the situational weight may be 50 per cent forlow and 150 per cent for high.

In the example depicted in FIG. 9 a, base liability values may havealready been determined from a table of base liabilities of past ortheoretical accidents, as was described in reference to FIG. 8 b. Forexample, the insurance carrier may have determined that the baseliability for the insured was 80%, with a lower bound of 50% and anupper bound of 100%. Consequently, base liability for the claimant maybe 20%.

In an embodiment, the levels of the situational weights (e.g., N/A, low,normal, and high) may be represented as percent weights (e.g., 0%, 50%,100%, and 150%, respectively). In some embodiments, for a given factor,the penalty value, the situational weight, the percent weight, andwhether or not the factor may apply may be specified by the user. If thefactor applies, the adjusted penalty may be estimated by multiplying thepenalty value by the percent weight associated with the determinedsituational weight. For example, the adjusted penalty of 22.5% foralcohol for the insured may be estimated by multiplying the penalty(e.g., 15%) by the percent weight (e.g., 150%) associated with thedetermined situational weight (e.g., “high”). In an embodiment, answersto questions in the flowcharts may be used to determine whether asituational weight associated with a factor is low, medium, high, or notapplicable.

In other embodiments, the penalty, and/or situational weight may not bedetermined directly by a user. In such an embodiment, the penalty and/orsituational weight may be determined from the answers to a series ofquestions. The questions may be specific to one party (e.g., thetortfeasor or other party). The questions may relate to roadwayconfiguration, accident type, and/or other characteristics of theaccident. FIGS. 10 a to 36 are flowcharts that depict methods ofdetermining penalties values associated with various factors. In theFIGS. 10 a to 36, the penalty values may be represented in certain ofthe flowchart terminuses as percentage values. In certain flowcharts,the penalty values may be represented by the terms “low,” “medium,” or“high.” These terms may represent variables that correspond to penaltyvalues. For example, the “low” term may correspond to a penalty value of10%, the “medium” term may correspond to a penalty value of 20%, and the“high” term may correspond to a penalty value of 30%. In someembodiments, the penalty values associated with each of these terms maybe configurable by the claims organization. In some embodiments, all ofthe penalty values determined by methods such as those depicted in FIGS.10 a through 36 may be configurable by the claims organization.

In some cases, a factor may be determined to be a talking point (“TP”).As used herein, the term “talking point” generally refers to a factorthat may not affect liability and may be informational only because theliability may be inherent in the base liability for the roadwayconfiguration/accident type combination and the right of way. In certainembodiments, a computer system may gather information related to anaccident and note for the user talking points identified from theinformation. Talking points may be useful if two or more parties mustcome to a negotiated agreement regarding the assessment of liabilityfrom the accident. A factor may also be determined to be an ALV.

In some embodiments, the situational weight for a factor may not becontrolled directly by the user. In such embodiments, a factor rankingmay be provided by the user to indirectly adjust the effect of a factor.For example, the user may rank factors on a scale of 0 to 5. The rankingfactor may take into account the importance that a given factor has to aclaims organization when it is not related to the characteristics of aparticular accident. A knowledge acquisition utility may be provided viaa computer system. The knowledge acquisition utility may ask the user aseries of questions related to one or more factors, and determine aranking factor from answers provided by the user. Alternately, the usermay be presented directly with a list or factors and may be asked torank each factor on a provided scale. In such embodiments, factorsranked as having a greater importance may be provided a situationalweight. Such a method may be used in some embodiments to determinepenalty values associated with one or more factors.

One method of applying the factor ranking to situational weights may beto assign a weight in terms of a percentage value between 0 and 100%. Arank of 0 may correspond to 0% and a rank of 5 may correspond to 100%.Ranks between 0 and 5 may be assigned values in 20% increments. If avalue is assigned to the situational weight for a given factor, thesituational weight may be adjusted by the ranking factor. For example,if the system estimates that high beams have a situational weight of 10percent, and the claims organization gave a rank of 4 to high beams, theadjusted situational weight may be 8 percent.

As used herein, the term “penalty value” generally indicates that aportion of liability that would otherwise be assessed to a first partyis not assessed to the first party. In some cases, that portion of theliability may be shifted to a second party, where the second party maybe another driver involved in the accident. In other cases, theliability may be shifted to a third party, where the third party was nota driver involved in the accident. For example, the third party may bean owner of an animal that contributed to the accident.

Adjusting the base liability based on factors may be done in a number ofways. For example, a direct shift may be used. In an embodiment, aportion of the base liability assessed to the first party may be shiftedto the second party. In such a case, a penalty factor may be apercentage of the liability to shift. For example, if the first andsecond party would each be assessed with 50% of the liability for theaccident. A penalty value of 80% for the second party means that thefirst party is assessed with 10% of the liability and the second partyis assessed with 90% of the liability.

In some embodiments, a debit/credit system may be used. In suchembodiments, an effect on liability for a particular factor may bedetermined. One half of the determined penalty value may then be addedto a first party, and the other half subtracted from the second party.After all of the factors may have been considered, the penalty valuesfor each party may be summed and applied to the base liability. Forexample, FIGS. 9 b and 9 c depict examples of applying a debit/creditsystem for assessing the effect of several factors on the liability. Inthe example of FIG. 9 b, Factors 1 and 2 apply to the first party,having penalty values of 20% (i.e., 10%+10%) and 30% (i.e., 15%+15%),respectively. Additionally, Factor 3 applies to the second party, havinga penalty value of 10%. Therefore, a total of 20% may be added to thebase liability of the first party, leaving a 70% liability assessmentfor the first party. The second party may receive a 30% liabilityassessment as a result of 20% being subtracted from the base liabilityof the second party. In some embodiments, effects on liability adjustthe base liability by multiplying the sum of the effects on liabilitytimes the base liability. For example, using the same numbers as in FIG.9 c, but multiplying the sum by the base liability the first and secondparties may be assessed with 60% and 40%, respectively. In addition tothe calculation demonstrated in FIGS. 9 b and 9 c, one or moresituational weights may be used to adjust the penalty values associatedwith each factor before the penalty values are assessed to the parties.

FIGS. 10 a and 10 b depict flowcharts of alternate embodiments ofmethods for estimating the effect on liability of an alcohol factor. Inan embodiment, the alcohol factor may apply to either the tortfeasor orthe other party for all accident types.

If at decision point 1001 in FIG. 10 a, it is determined that alcoholwas not consumed prior to the accident, then the alcohol factor may notbe applicable as shown by step 1002. If alcohol was consumed prior tothe accident, the next step, shown by decision point 1003, may be todetermine if the alcohol usage contributed to the accident. If not, thenthe alcohol factor may not be applicable as shown by step 1004. If it isdetermined that alcohol usage did contribute to the accident,information of basic facts may be gathered as shown by step 1005. Basicinformation may include blood alcohol content, whether or not a sobrietytest was given, and whether or not the accident involved a fatality.Optional information may also be gathered, as shown by step 1007, suchas the type and amount of alcohol consumed, where the alcohol was servedand by whom, and the weight of the user.

If the accident involved a fatality, as determined at decision point1009 shown in FIG. 10 a, “warrants further discussion” may be added tothe accident report, as shown in step 1011. However, whether or notthere was a fatality involved in the accident, the next decision point1013 may be to determine if the user was cited for impairment. If theuser was cited for impairment, a talking point may be reached, as shownby step 1015. If the user was not cited for impairment, the nextdecision point 1017 may be to determine if there was any indication ofimpairment. If there was no indication of impairment, the alcohol factormay not be applicable as shown by step 1019. If there was any indicationof impairment, the next step may be to determine what the indication wasbased on at decision point 1021. A blood alcohol content may indicate alevel of impairment. Statements or other evidence may also provide someindication of impairment, which would be described as shown by step1023. After it is determined what the indication of impairment was basedon, a talking point may be reached as shown by step 1025.

An alternate method of determining an effect on liability of alcohol isdepicted in FIG. 10 b. At step 1051, the method may include determiningif alcohol was consumed by a driver of a vehicle involved in theaccident prior to the accident. If it is determined that no alcohol wasconsumed prior to the accident, the factor may not apply, as shown bystep 1052. If alcohol was consumed by a driver of a vehicle involved inthe accident, step 1053 may determine whether the driver was cited forimpairment. In certain embodiments, prior to step 1053, the method mayalso include a step to determine if the alcohol consumption contributedto the accident. If it is determined that the driver was cited forimpairment, step 1054 may be reached and an ALV may assign 100% of theliability to the driver cited for impairment. If the driver was notcited for impairment, decision point 1055 may determine if otherindications of impairment were present. If no indications of impairmentwere present, a “high” penalty value may be assessed to the driver thathad consumed alcohol, as depicted in step 1056. If indications ofimpairment were present, the method may determine the nature of theindications of impairment at step 1057. Indications of impairment basedon blood alcohol content (step 1058), or statements or other evidence(step 1059) may result in a penalty value of 70% of the liability to theimpaired driver.

FIG. 11 is a flowchart illustrating a method for estimating the effecton liability of a factor that accounts for the presence of aconstruction zone on a motor vehicle accident according to oneembodiment. The construction zone factor may be applied to a tortfeasorand/or other party for any accident type.

If a motor vehicle accident occurred in a construction zone where athird party, other than the driver(s) or vehicle(s) involved in theaccident may be involved, as determined at decision point 1101 in FIG.11, then a talking point may be reached at step 1103. If the accidentdid not occur in a construction zone, then the factor may not beapplicable in estimating liability, as shown by step 1105.

FIG. 12 is a flowchart for estimating the effect on liability of afactor that accounts for corrective lenses in a motor vehicle accidentaccording to one embodiment. The corrective lenses factor may be appliedto a tortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type.

If it is determined at decision point 1201 in FIG. 12 that a driverinvolved in a motor vehicle accident did not require corrective lenses,then the factor may not be applicable as shown by step 1203. Ifcorrective lenses were required, the next decision point 1205 may be todetermine whether they were worn at the time of the accident. If thecorrective lenses were worn at the time of the accident, the factor maynot be applicable in estimating liability, as shown by step 1207. Ifrequired corrective lenses were not worn by the driver at the time ofthe accident, a talking point may be reached as shown by step 1209.

FIG. 13 is a flowchart for estimating the effect on liability of afactor that accounts for a defective, obscured, or missing trafficcontrol on a motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment. Thetraffic control may be missing or completely obscured. A defective lightmay be one that may not be lit for either party (e.g., not lit for TF ornot lit for OP). The traffic control factor may be applied to atortfeasor and/or other party for accident types 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,16, and 17.

If at decision point 1301 shown in FIG. 13, the accident type wasdetermined to be 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, or 15, then the trafficcontrol factor may not be applicable to estimating liability, as shownby step 1303. For accident types 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, and 17, adecision point shown by step 1305 may be reached to determine if anobscured, defective, or missing traffic control contributed to theaccident. If an obscured, defective, or missing traffic control did notcontribute to the accident, then the factor may not applicable forestimating liability, as shown in step 1309.

If it is determined that an obscured, defective, or missing trafficcontrol contributed to the accident, then decision point 1307 may bereached to determine if a driver was familiar with the accidentlocation. If the answer is yes, then a talking point may be reached asshown by step 1311. If the answer is no, the next decision point 1313may be whether or not the intersection appeared to be an uncontrolledintersection. If not, a “medium” penalty value may be assessed to theparty in question, as shown in step 1317. If the intersection appearedto be a controlled intersection, an ALV of 10% may be assessed to theparty in question.

FIG. 14 is a flowchart for estimating the effect on liability of afactor that accounts for the contribution of driver inattention to amotor vehicle accident according to one embodiment. The driverinattention factor may be applied to a tortfeasor and/or other party forany accident type.

As shown by decision point 1401 in FIG. 14, if the driver failed tomaintain a proper lookout (e.g., not looking at the road ahead), then a“low” penalty value may be assessed against the driver, as shown in step1405. If the driver maintained a proper lookout, the step 1403 may bereached. Step 1403 may determine if the driver was distracted prior tothe accident (e.g., by a conversation, a cell phone, shaving, etc.). Ifthe driver was distracted, then a “low” penalty value may be assessed tothe driver at step 1406. If the driver was not distracted then, as step1404 indicates, the factor may be not applicable for the driver.

FIG. 15 is a flowchart for estimating the effect on liability of afactor that accounts for the contribution of driver inexperience to amotor vehicle accident according to one embodiment. The driverinexperience factor may be applied to a tortfeasor and/or other partyfor any accident type.

As shown by decision point 1501 in FIG. 15, the duration of time thedriver has been legally driving may be a determining factor. If thedriver has been driving for two years or less, then the factor may be atalking point as shown by step 1503. If the driver has been driving formore than two years, then the driver inexperience factor may not beapplicable as shown by step 1505. In some embodiments, decision point1501 may be directed to how long a driver has been legally driving aparticular class of vehicle that was involved in the accident. Forexample, if the driver was driving a motorcycle at the time of theaccident, decision point 1501 may determine how long the driver has beenlegally driving motorcycles.

FIG. 16 is a flowchart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of taking an illicit drug to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. The illicit drug factormay be applied to a tortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type.As used herein, the term “illicit drug” generally refers to an illegal,or unlawfully used drug. For example, an unlawfully used drug mayinclude a prescription drug taken in a fashion other than the prescribedmanner or a prescription drug taken by a person to whom it has not beenprescribed.

Decision point 1601 in FIG. 16 may determine if an illicit drug wasconsumed prior to the accident If no illicit drug was taken before theaccident, the illicit drug factor may be not applicable, as shown instep 1603. If an illicit drug was taken prior to the accident, a “low”penalty value may be assessed to the party that took the illicit drug,as shown in step 1605.

In other embodiments, factors accounting for the consumption of illicitdrugs and the consumption of alcohol may be treated simultaneouslythrough an alcohol factor flow chart as depicted in FIGS. 10 a and 10 b.

FIG. 17 is a flowchart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of an affirmative action of taking amedication to a motor vehicle accident according to one embodiment. Themedication factor may be applied to a tortfeasor and/or other party forany accident type. In an embodiment, the medication factor may notinclude failing to take required medicine since the illness factor maytake this into account. As used herein, the term “medication” generallyrefers to either a prescription drug, or an over-the-counter drug.Additionally, in some embodiments, a medication may include any legalchemical substance that may be consumed by an individual for medicalreasons (e.g., herbs, or other nontraditional medications).

At decision point 1701 in FIG. 17, it is determined whether a medicationwas taken prior to the accident. If not, as shown by step 1703, then themedication factor may not be applicable. If a medication was taken priorto the accident, then the next decision point 1705 may determine if themedication had an affect on the ability to drive. If not, then thefactor may not be applicable, as shown by step 1707.

If the medication affected the ability to drive, it may then bedetermined if the party was aware of this effect, as shown by decisionpoint 1709. If the party was aware of the effect of the medication onthe ability to drive, then a “low” penalty value may be assessed for themedication factor, as shown by step 1711. If the party was not aware ofthe effect of the medication on the ability to drive, then decisionpoint 1713 may ask if the medication had appropriate warnings andlabels. If there were not proper warnings or labels on the medication,then the factor may be a talking point as shown by step 1715. In someembodiments, if there were not proper warnings or labels on themedication, step 1715 may indicate that a portion of the liability maybe attributed to a third-party (e.g., the medication vendor, ormanufacturer). If the medication was properly labeled, then a “low”penalty value may be assessed to the party as shown by step 1717.

FIG. 18 is a flowchart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of fatigue to a motor vehicle accidentaccording to one embodiment. The fatigue factor may be applied to atortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type.

At decision point 1801 in FIG. 18, the number of hours the party hadbeen driving may be determined. If the driver had been driving for morethen 6 hours, then the factor may be a talking point as shown by step1803. If the driver had been driving for 6 hours or less, then decisionpoint 1805 asks how long the driver had been awake, but not driving. Ifthe driver was awake but not driving for more than 12 hours, then thefactor may be a talking point as shown by step 1807. If the driver wasawake for 12 hours or less prior to driving, then the number of hoursthe driver last slept may be determined at decision point 1809. If thedriver slept less than 6 hours, the factor may be a talking point, asshown by step 1811. If the driver slept 6 hours or more, then thefatigue factor may not be applicable, as shown by step 1813.

FIG. 19 is a flowchart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of faulty equipment to a motor vehicleaccident according to one embodiment. As used herein, the term “faultyequipment” generally refers to any vehicle equipment malfunction thatcauses an action, prohibits the operator from taking action, or fails toperform an action. In an embodiment, the faulty equipment factor may notapply to headlights, taillights, or brake lights that do not function asother factors may be provided that account for these potential equipmentfailures. The faulty equipment factor may be applied to a tortfeasorand/or other party for any accident type.

Decision point 1901 may ask whether defective equipment contributed tothe accident, as depicted in FIG. 19. If defective equipment did notcontribute to the accident, then the faulty equipment factor may not beapplicable, as shown in step 1903. If defective equipment contributed tothe accident, the next step may be decision point 1905, which maydetermine the party that faulty equipment affected. If the faultyequipment affected the other party, as shown in step 1907, then atalking point may be reached. If the faulty equipment affected thetortfeasor, the next step may be decision point 1909, which maydetermine the age of the vehicle.

If the vehicle was one year old or greater, then the vehicle may not beconsidered new. If the vehicle was less than one year old, then the nextdecision point 1911 may ask the mileage on the vehicle. If the vehiclemileage was less than 10,000 miles at the time of the accident, thevehicle may be considered new. If the vehicle mileage was 10,000 milesor greater at the time of the accident, the vehicle may not beconsidered new.

In some embodiments, if the vehicle was new, then step 1913 may be atalking point. Alternately, in some embodiments, step 1913 may indicatethat the faulty equipment may be attributed to a third party. The thirdparty may include the person or entity from which the vehicle waspurchased or serviced. If the vehicle was not considered new by steps1909 or 1911, the next step may be decision point 1915 that may askwhether the defective part was serviced within the last month. Ifservice was performed on the defective part within the last month, atalking point may be reached, as shown by step 1917. In someembodiments, step 1917 may be an ALV of 0% for the driver of the vehiclewith the defective part. In some embodiments, at least a portion of theliability for the accident may be attributed to a third party at step1917. For example, the third party may be an individual or entity thatlast serviced the defective part. The third party may also include themanufacturer of the defective part. If the defective part was notserviced within the last month, decision point 1919 may ask if there wasany indication or history of the problem. Whether or not there was anindication or history of the problem, the faulty equipment factor mayreach a talking point as shown by steps 1921 and 1923. Steps 1921 and1923 may be indicated differently in an assessment report as discussedwith reference to FIG. 55. In alternate embodiments, if there was noindication or history of the problem at step 1919, another decisionpoint may be reached. The decision point may be to determine whether ornot unwanted acceleration occurred. If not, then a talking point may bereached and noted in the assessment report. However, if an unwantedacceleration did occur, the driver of the affected vehicle may beassessed an ALV of 0% liability. Additionally, a portion of theliability may be assessed to a third party. For example, the third partymay include a manufacturer or seller of the vehicle or the defectivepart.

FIG. 20 a is a flowchart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of following too closely to a motorvehicle accident according to a first embodiment. As used herein, theterm “following too closely” generally refers to an action by the driverof a rear vehicle in which the driver of the rear vehicle fails toremain a safe distance from a vehicle in front of them before theaccident, thus contributing to the accident. In some embodiments, thefollowing too closely factor may be applied only to the tortfeasor andmay only be applied for accident type 1.

As shown by decision point 2001 in FIG. 20 a, if the accident type wasnot type 1 or the tortfeasor was not behind or following the otherparty, then the factor may not be applicable as shown by step 2003. Ifthe accident type was type 1 and the tortfeasor was following the otherparty, then the next step 2005 may be to gather information regardingthe accident. The information may include the number of car lengthsbetween the other party and the tortfeasor before the accident, and thespeed that the tortfeasor was traveling. Additionally, as shown by step2007, information may be gathered from any witnesses who may verify thenumber of car lengths that were between the other party and thetortfeasor.

The next decision point 2009 may ask for the speed of the tortfeasor.The speed of the tortfeasor may be used to determine a recommended safefollowing distance the tortfeasor should have been traveling behind theother party in steps 2011 or 2013. For example, if the tortfeasor wastraveling less than 45 mph, then the recommended safe following distancein car lengths may be determined by: speed/10, as shown by step 2011. Ifthe tortfeasor was traveling 45 mph or greater, the recommended safefollowing distance may be: 1.5*(speed/10), as shown by step 2013. Fromthis determination, the decision point 2015 may ask whether the actualnumber of car lengths was less than the recommended safe followingdistance. If the actual car lengths were less than the recommended safefollowing distance, then the factor may be a talking point as shown bystep 2017. If the actual car lengths between the tortfeasor and otherparty were not less than the recommended safe following distance, thenthe following too closely factor may not be applicable, as shown by step2019.

FIG. 20 b is a flowchart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of following too closely to a motorvehicle accident according to a second embodiment. As shown by decisionpoint 2025 in FIG. 20 b, if the accident type was not type 1 or thetortfeasor was not behind or following the other party, then the factormay not be applicable as shown by step 2027. If the accident type wastype 1 and the tortfeasor was following the other party, then the nextstep 2029 may be to determine if the actual following distance was lessthan a recommended safe following distance according to the table inFIG. 20 c.

FIG. 20 c depicts a table for determining a recommended safe followingdistance. If the driver of the rear vehicle was traveling at less thanor equal to 45 mile per hour (mph), then row 2050 may be used todetermine the recommended safe following distance. If the driver of therear vehicle was traveling at greater than 45 mph, then row 2052 may beused to determine the recommended safe following distance. Column 2054may determine a surface of the road.

At speeds of less than or equal to 45 mph and with a gravel road surfacethe recommended safe following distance may be at least 20% of the speedin car lengths (e.g., speed*0.2=number of car lengths). Thus, at 40 mph,the recommended safe travel distance may be 8 car lengths (i.e.,40*0.2=8 car lengths). At speeds of greater than 45 mph and with agravel road surface the recommended safe following distance may be atleast 30% of the speed in car lengths.

For non-gravel road surfaces, a condition of the road surface may beconsidered in column 2056. The condition of the road surface mayinclude, but is not limited to, dry, wet, or muddy. In addition, thecondition of the road surface may consider whether the road is coveredwith snow or ice, has patches of snow or ice, or has plowed snow or ice.In various embodiments, other road conditions may also be considered.For example, a road condition that may be prevalent in a particularregion may be considered, such as having ruts. Once the road conditionhas been determined, a recommended safe following distance may bedetermined based on a percentage of the speed as specified in column2058. It is envisioned that the specific percentage of speed specifiedby various combinations of speed, road surface, and road condition maybe varied according to the preference of the insurance carrier, orregional or jurisdictional preferences.

FIG. 21 is a flowchart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of driving with headlights off to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. In some embodiments, theheadlights off factor may not apply to accident types 1, and 14. Thefactor may be applied to a tortfeasor and/or other party.

In FIG. 21, decision point 2101 asks for the accident type. For accidenttypes 1, and 14, the factor may not be applicable as shown by step 2105.Additionally, in some embodiments, the factor may not apply for accidenttypes 15 and 17. For the remaining accident types, the next step may bedecision point 2103 in which visibility at the time of the accident maybe determined. The visibility factor is illustrated in FIG. 35. Ifvisibility was good, then the driving with headlights off factor may notbe applicable as shown by step 2109. Otherwise, if visibility was poor,decision point 2111 may determine if the party was driving with thevehicle's headlights on. If it is determined that the party had theheadlights on, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown by step2119. If the vehicle's headlights were off at the time of the accident,then decision point 2121 may be reached. Decision point 2121 askswhether the location of the accident was relatively dark, for example,without streetlights at the time. If it was dark without streetlights,the party may have a “high” penalty value assessed, as shown by step2123. If it was not dark and/or streetlights were on, then the otherparty may have a “medium” penalty value assessed, as shown by step 2125.

In some embodiments, the method of determining the effect on liabilityof driving with headlights off may determine different penalty valuesdepending on the party being considered. For example, if it isdetermined that the tortfeasor was driving with headlights off, atalking point may be reached. If it is determined that the other partywas driving with headlights off, then penalty values as described abovemay be assessed to the other party.

In some embodiments, the method of determining the effect on liabilityof driving with headlights off may determine if both headlights were offor if only one headlight was off. If only one headlight was on, themethod may determine if the one headlight would have provided adequatelighting for the driver of the vehicle to drive safely. If it isdetermined that the one headlight may not have provided adequatelighting, the method may proceed to step 2121 to determine a penaltyvalue to assess. The method may also consider whether the one headlightwould have made the vehicle visible to the driver of the other vehicle(e.g., was the one working headlight visible to the driver of the othervehicle). If it is determined that the one headlight may not have madethe vehicle visible to the driver of the other vehicle, the method mayproceed to step 2121 to determine a penalty value to assess.

FIG. 22 is a flowchart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of driving with high beams on to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. The high beams factor maybe applied to a tortfeasor and/or the other party. In some embodiments,the factor may only be applied for accident type 16. In suchembodiments, the factor may not be applied for the roadwayconfiguration/accident type combination F16. The high beams factor maybe related to glare that causes a driver to be blinded.

In FIG. 22, decision point 2201 and step 2205 indicate the factor mayonly be applicable for accident type 16, not including roadwayconfiguration F. If the answer to decision point 2201 is yes, thendecision point 2203 may ask whether high beams were on at the time ofthe accident. If not, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown bystep 2209. If the high beams were on, the lighting may be determined atstep 2207. If the lighting was dark, with or without streetlights, thenliability may depend upon which party is being considered, as shown bydecision point 2211. If the lighting was other than dark, with orwithout streetlights (e.g., daylight, dawn, or dusk) then the factor maynot be applicable, as shown by step 2213. If the party is thetortfeasor, then decision point 2215 may ask whether the other party wasblinded. If the other party was blinded, then the factor may be atalking point, as shown by step 2219. If the other party was notblinded, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown by step 2217.In other embodiments, a “medium” penalty value may be assessed to thetortfeasor if the other party was blinded, and a “low” penalty value maybe assessed if the other party was not blinded.

If the party is the other party, then decision point 2221 may ask if thetortfeasor was blinded. If not, then the factor may not be applicable,as shown by step 2223. If the tortfeasor was blinded, the factor mayapply a “medium” penalty value, as shown in step 2227. In alternateembodiments, if the tortfeasor was blinded, then another decision pointmay be reached that may depend on the roadway configuration. If theroadway configuration was E, then a “medium” penalty value may beassessed. If the roadway configuration was A, B, or H, then a “low”penalty value may be assessed. If the roadway configuration was otherthan A, B, E, or H, than the factor may not be applicable.

FIG. 23 is a flowchart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of illness to a motor vehicle accidentaccording to one embodiment. As used herein, the term “illness”generally refers to a physical condition that prohibits the safeoperation of a vehicle. The illness factor may be applied to atortfeasor only for any accident type.

If the party is determined to be the other party at decision point 2301in FIG. 23, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown by step2303. For the tortfeasor, the next step is decision point 2305, whichmay ask whether the illness contributed to the accident. If not, thenthe factor may not be applicable as shown by step 2307. If illness ofthe tortfeasor contributed to the accident, then decision point 2309 mayask if the tortfeasor had a history of the illness. If not, then an ALVof 0% liability may be assessed to the tortfeasor. If the tortfeasor hada history of illness, then decision point 2311 may ask if the tortfeasorwas medically cleared to drive. If the tortfeasor was not cleared todrive, then the illness factor may not be applicable as shown by step2317. If the tortfeasor was cleared to drive without medication, then anALV of 0% liability may be assessed to the tortfeasor, as shown by step2315. If the tortfeasor was medically cleared to drive with medication,then decision point 2319 may be reached, which may ask if the requiredmedication had been taken. If the required medication had been taken,then an ALV of 0% liability may be assessed to the tortfeasor, as shownby step 2321. If the required medication had not been taken, then 2323indicates that a talking point may be reached.

FIGS. 24 a and 24 b are flowcharts for estimating the effect of a factorthat accounts for the contribution of an improper lane change to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. An improper lane changemay be a lane change that was completed before the accident andcontributed to the accident. The improper lane change factor may beapplied to the tortfeasor and/or other party only for accident type 1.In an embodiment, the factor may determine the effect on liability of animproper lane change based on car lengths between the vehicles beforethe accident and a subjective determination of the magnitude ofdeceleration of the parties. It is believed that an improper lane changemay reduce the opportunity of the tortfeasor to avoid the accidentand/or may reduce the tortfeasor's available stopping distance. Forexample, if other party and the tortfeasor are slowing and other partypulls in between the tortfeasor and whatever the other party and thetortfeasor are stopping for, the tortfeasor's available stoppingdistance may be reduced.

In FIG. 24 a, decision point 2401 may ask whether the accident type wastype 1, and whether the other party and right of way have beendetermined. If any of these conditions is not true, the factor may notbe applicable, as shown in step 2403. If the accident type is 1, and theother party and right of way have been determined, then the next step2404 may ask if the other party changed lanes prior to the accident. Ifthe other party did not change lanes, then step 2406 indicates that thefactor may not be applicable. If the other party changed lanes beforethe accident, the next step 2405 may be to determine effective carlengths between the other party and the tortfeasor. The term “effectivecar lengths,” as used herein, generally refers to the actual car lengthsbetween the parties minus an adjustment.

The determination of the effective car lengths 2405 is shown in FIG. 24b. Decision point 2433 may ask if the other party's lane change was asudden lane change. If it was, then decision point 2435 may ask if theother party signaled the lane change. If the other party signaled, thenthe effective car lengths may be the actual car lengths minus one, asshown in step 2439. If the other party did not signal, then theeffective car lengths may be the actual car lengths minus two, as shownby step 2440. If the answer to decision point 2433 is no, the decisionpoint 2437 may ask if the other party signaled the lane change. If theother party did signal the lane change, then the effective car lengthsmay be the actual car lengths, as shown in step 2441. If the other partydid not signal, then the effective car lengths may be the actual carlengths minus one, as shown by step 2442.

Turning again to FIG. 24 a, if the effective car lengths are less than1, then decision point 2409 may ask if the tortfeasor was slowing downwhen the lane change took place. If the tortfeasor was not slowing down,then a penalty value of 75% of liability may be assessed to the otherparty, as shown by step 2418. Alternately, in an embodiment, if thetortfeasor was not slowing down, then the liability may be determined byan experienced claims adjuster. If the tortfeasor was slowing down ineither a slight or an extreme manner, then a penalty value of 100% ofliability may be assessed to the other party at step 2417 or 2419. Insome embodiments, an ALV of 100% liability may be assessed at steps 2417and 2419 rather than a penalty value.

If the effective car lengths are about 1 or about 2, then decision point2411 again may ask if the tortfeasor was slowing down. If the tortfeasorwas not slowing down, then a penalty value of 75% of liability may beassessed to the other party, as shown by step 2422. Alternately, in anembodiment, if the tortfeasor was not slowing down, then the liabilitymay be determined by an experienced claims adjuster. If the tortfeasorwas slowing down in either a slight or an extreme manner, then a penaltyvalue of 100% of liability may be assessed to the other party at step2423 or 2425. In some embodiments, an ALV of 100% liability may beassessed at steps 2423 and 2425 rather than a penalty value.

If the effective car lengths are about 3 or about 4, then decision point2413 may ask if the other party was slowing down. If the other party waseither not slowing down or slightly slowing, then no penalty value maybe assessed to either party, as shown by steps 2427 and 2429. If theother party was slowing down in an extreme manner at the time of thelane change, then a penalty value of 50% of liability may be assigned tothe other party, as shown by steps 2431.

If the effective car lengths are greater than about 4, then no penaltyvalue may be assessed to either party, as shown by steps 2407.

In other embodiments, the actual speed and/or distance between thevehicles before the accident or at the time of the lane change may bedetermined. An analysis like the one described above may then be used todetermine the effect on liability of the lane change based on the actualspeed and/or distance between the vehicles.

FIG. 25 is a flowchart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of an improperly parked vehicle to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. The improperly parkedvehicle factor may be applied only to the other party and only foraccident type 14. In an embodiment, a parked vehicle may be consideredlegally parked, illegally parked, or disabled.

In FIG. 25, decision point 2501 and step 2503 indicate that the factormay not be applicable to accident types other than type 14. If theaccident type is 14, then decision point 2505 may ask whether thevehicle was legally parked. If the vehicle was legally parked, then thefactor may not be applicable, as shown by step 2507. If the vehicle wasnot legally parked, then decision point 2509 may ask if the vehicle wasdisabled. If the vehicle was not disabled and was not legally parked,then a penalty value may be estimated by an experienced claims adjuster,as shown by step 2513. If the vehicle was disabled and was not legallyparked, then decision point 2511 may ask where the vehicle was parked.If the vehicle was outside a travel lane, then regardless of whether thevehicle had its flashers on, the factor may not be applicable, as shownby decision point 2517 and steps 2519 and 2521.

If the vehicle was parked in a travel lane, then decision point 2515 mayask why it was there. If the vehicle ran out of gas, then decision point2523 asks if the vehicle had its flashers on. A penalty value may bedetermined by experienced claims adjusters in steps 2525 and 2527 foreither a yes or no answer. If the vehicle was abandoned or there was noapparent reason why the vehicle was in the travel lane, then decisionpoint 2531 may ask if the vehicle had its flashers on. A penalty valuemay be determined by an experienced claims adjuster in steps 2533 and2535 for either a yes or no answer. If the vehicle was in the travellane due to a breakdown or accident, then decision point 2529 may ask ifthe other party had knowledge of the defect, which may have caused thebreakdown or accident. If yes, then decision point 2537 asks how longthe vehicle had been parked at the location of the accident. If thevehicle was there for less than or equal to one hour, then decisionpoint 2541 asks if the vehicle had its flashers on. A penalty value maybe determined by experienced claims adjusters in steps 2545 or 2547 foreither a yes or no answer. If the vehicle was sitting in the travel lanefor more than one hour, then decision point 2541 asks if the vehicle hadits flashers on. A penalty value may be determined by experienced claimsadjusters in steps 2549 or 2551 for either a yes or no answer.

If the other party did not have knowledge of the defect at decisionpoint 2529, then decision point 2539 may ask how long the vehicle hadbeen parked at the location of the accident. If the vehicle was therefor less than or equal to one hour, then decision point 2553 asks if thevehicle had its flashers on. A penalty value may be determined byexperienced claims adjusters in steps 2557 or 2559 for either a yes orno answer. If the vehicle was sitting in the travel lane for more thanone hour, then decision point 2555 may ask if the vehicle had itsflashers on. A penalty value may be determined by experienced claimsadjusters in steps 2561 or 2563 for either a yes or no answer,respectively.

In other embodiments, a parked vehicle may be assumed to always have theright of way. Thus, no improperly parked vehicle factor may be used.

FIG. 26 is a flowchart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of improper signaling to a motor vehicleaccident according to one embodiment. As used herein, the term “impropersignaling” generally refers to signaling one action and doing another ornot signaling at all. In certain embodiments, an improper signal mayrefer only to signaling one action and doing another (i.e., not to “nosignal”). In such embodiments, an improper turn and lack of signal maynot be part of the improper signaling factor. “No signal” and improperturn and lack of signal may already be taken into account by the roadwayconfiguration/accident type combination.

As shown in FIG. 26, if it is determined at decision point 2601 that theaccident type is 1, 14, or 15, then the factor may not be applicable, asshown in step 2603. For all other accident types, decision point 2605may ask if a party signaled improperly. If the answer to decision point2605 is no, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown by step2609. If the answer is yes, then a “low” penalty value may be assessedagainst the party that signaled improperly, as shown in step 2607. Insome embodiments, an additional decision point may follow decision point2605 if a party did signal improperly. The additional decision point maydetermine which party signaled improperly. In such embodiments, if it isthe other party that improperly signaled then a low penalty value may beassessed against the other party. If the tortfeasor improperly signaled,then a talking point may be reached.

FIG. 27 is a flowchart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of an obstructed view or glare to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. The obstructed view orglare factor may be applied to the tortfeasor and/or other party for anyaccident type. If an obstructed view or glare affected a party's view ofother vehicles or a traffic sign, the factor may be a talking point.

In FIG. 27, decision point 2701 may ask if a driver's view of anothervehicle or a traffic control was obscured. Step 2703 indicates that ifthe answer is no, then the factor may not be applicable. In someembodiments, if the answer to decision point 2701 is yes, then anotherdecision point may ask if the obstructed view or glare contributed tothe accident. If not, then the factor may not be applicable. If it isdetermined that the obstructed view or glare contributed to theaccident, the decision point may lead to decision point 2707. Decisionpoint 2707 may ask whether it was a glare obscured the driver's view. Ifit was a glare, then the factor may be a talking point, as shown by step2711. In some embodiment, if the answer to decision point 2707 is no,then there may be a request to provide a description of the obstructionfor use in an assessment report. In step 2715, the obstructed view maybe a talking point.

FIG. 28 is a flowchart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of road condition to a motor vehicleaccident according to one embodiment. The road condition factor may beapplied to the tortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type. Asshown in FIG. 28, the road condition at decision point 2801 may beeither dry or in some other condition. If the road condition is dry,then step 2803 may indicate that the factor may not be applicable. Otherconditions may include, but are not limited to, a roadway that is wet,has snow and/or ice, is muddy, has plowed snow, has been salted, or hassnow and/or ice patches. If other conditions apply to the roadway, thenstep 2805 may indicate that the factor may be a talking point.

FIG. 29 is a flowchart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of road character to a motor vehicleaccident according to one embodiment. The road character factor may beapplied to the tortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type. Asshown in FIG. 29, the road character at decision point 2901 may beeither level or some other character. If the road character is level,then step 2903 indicates that the factor may not be applicable. Otherroad characters may include, but are not limited to, a roadway that hasa hill, a hillcrest, or a sag-bottom of a hill. If other road charactersapply to the roadway, then step 2905 may indicate that the factor may bea talking point.

FIG. 30 is a flowchart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of road surface to a motor vehicleaccident according to one embodiment. The road surface factor may beapplied to the tortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type. Asshown in FIG. 30, the road surface at decision point 3001 may be eitherconcrete/asphalt or some other surface. If the road surface isconcrete/asphalt, then step 3003 may indicate that the factor may notapplicable. Other road surfaces may include, but are not limited tobrick, dirt, or gravel. If other surfaces apply to the roadway, thenstep 3005 indicates that the factor may be a talking point.

FIGS. 31 a-b may be used in combination with FIG. 31 c for estimatingthe effect of a factor that accounts for the contribution of speed to amotor vehicle accident according to a first embodiment. In someembodiments, the speed factor may not apply to accident type 14. Thespeed factor may be applied to either or both parties depending on thecircumstances of the accident.

In FIG. 31 a, step 3101 in estimating the speed factor may be todetermine the maximum safe speed. In some embodiments, step 3101 may bedirected to determining the maximum legal speed. Determination of themaximum safe speed is illustrated by the flowcharts in FIG. 31 b. Asshown in FIG. 31 b, the maximum safe speed may be determined by reducingthe legal speed limit to account for adverse road conditions and/orweather conditions. If the road condition is dry and the weather clear,the maximum safe speed may be the legal speed limit. However, if theroad condition is not dry and/or the weather is not clear, then themaximum safe speed may be less than the speed limit. Decision point 3141in FIG. 31 b may inquire as to the road condition at the accident scene.Steps 3143, 3145, 3147, 3149, and 3151 may provide the corrections whenroad conditions are dry (e.g., 0), wet (e.g., 0.1×legal speed limit),snow (e.g., 0.2×legal speed limit), muddy (e.g., 0.2×legal speed limit),and ice (e.g., 0.3×legal speed limit), respectively. Similarly, decisionpoint 3153 in FIG. 31 b may inquire as to the weather at the accidentscene. Steps 3155, 3157, 3159, and 3161 may provide the corrections whenthe weather is clear (e.g., 0), smoke, etc. (e.g., 0.1×legal speedlimit), snowing (e.g., 0.2×legal speed limit), and fog (e.g., 0.2×legalspeed limit), respectively. For example, if the speed limit is 60 milesper hour, the road condition is wet, and the weather is snowing the safespeed may be: 60−(0.1×60)−(0.2×60)=60−6−12=42 miles per hour.

Step 3105 in FIG. 31 a shows that if the answer to decision point 3103is accident type 14, the factor may not be applicable. For any otheraccident type, decision point 3107 may ask which party is underconsideration. If the party is the tortfeasor, then decision point 3111may ask if the party was going faster than the maximum safe speedcalculated in step 3101. If the answer is yes, then step 3113 may referto the table in FIG. 31 c to calculate the effect on the liability. Ifthe party was not going faster than the maximum safe speed, then thefactor may not be applicable, as shown in step 3115.

If the party being considered at decision point 3107 is the other party,then decision point 3109 may ask if the accident type is 1. If theaccident type is not 1, then decision point 3119 may ask if the otherparty was going faster than the maximum safe speed calculated in step3101. If the answer is yes, then step 3121 may refer to the table inFIG. 31 c to calculate the effect on the liability. If the party was notgoing faster than the maximum safe speed, then step 3123 may indicatethat the factor may not be applicable.

If the accident type is 1 at decision point 3109, decision point 3117may ask if the other party was stopped at a yielding traffic control. Ifthe answer is yes, then step 3125 indicates that the factor may not beapplicable. If the answer is no, then decision point 3127 may ask if theother party was traveling at less than a minimum legal speed for theroadway. If not, then step 3132 indicates that the factor may not beapplicable. If the party was traveling at less than the minimum legalspeed, but not considerably slower, then decision point 3131 may ask ifthe vehicle's flashers were on. Step 3137 indicates that the factor maynot be applicable if the vehicle's flashers were on. If the flasherswere not on, step 3139 indicates that a “low” penalty value may beassessed against the other party. If the other party was travelingconsiderably slower than the minimum legal speed, then decision point3129 may ask if the vehicle's flashers were on. Step 3133 indicates thatthe factor may not be applicable if the flashers were on. If theflashers were not on, step 3135 indicates that a “medium” penalty valuemay be assessed against the other party. In certain embodiments, otherconsiderations may be used in determining the effect on liability of theother party traveling at less than the minimum legal speed. For example,in certain jurisdictions, various methods may be allowed to indicate aslow moving vehicle. For example, a sign or placard may be displayed ona vehicle or the vehicle may have a flashing yellow light. In suchembodiments, the use of any approved method to provide warning to othertraffic that the vehicle is moving slowly may result in the factor beingnot applicable.

FIG. 31 c is a table illustrating the estimation of the effect of afactor that accounts for the contribution of speed to a motor vehicleaccident according to the first embodiment. The first column of FIG. 31c may be related to the maximum safe speed calculated as shown in FIG.31 b. The second column of FIG. 31 c may include an actual speed for thevehicle. The third column may include following distances subjectivelyestimated by an experienced claims adjuster for several ranges of theactual speed of a following vehicle. A following distance less than thatspecified for a given actual speed range may be considered close while afollowing distance greater than that specified may be considered far.The fourth and fifth columns may provide exemplary penalty values orALVs to be assessed to a party under consideration.

For example, if the determined maximum safe speed is 50 miles per hour,a vehicle with an actual speed of 65 miles per hour following at adistance of 175 feet may have a penalty value assessed of 10% accordingto FIG. 31 c. For the same maximum safe speed, a vehicle with an actualspeed of 85 miles per hour may have an absolute liability value of 70%assessed.

FIGS. 32 a-c may be used for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of speed to a motor vehicle accidentaccording to a second embodiment. In some embodiments, the speed factormay not apply to accident type 14, as shown in step 3205 of FIG. 32 b.

Referring to FIG. 32 a, a maximum safe speed may be estimated. Themaximum safe speed may be estimated as a percentage of the maximum legalspeed (i.e., speed limit) for the location. To estimate the percentageof the speed limit corresponding to the maximum safe speed, a roadcondition may be selected from the first column of the table. Each roadcondition may be associated with a percentage that may be used toestimate the maximum safe speed for the location. Thus, for example, avehicle traveling on a dry road having a speed limit of 65 mph may beestimated as having a maximum safe speed of 65 mph. However, if the roadis wet, the vehicle may be estimated to have a maximum safe speed ofabout 59 mph.

In some embodiments, after the safe speed from the table is determinedan additional adjustment may be made to the estimate of the maximum safespeed based on the weather. For example, in some embodiments, if theweather is raining, sleeting or hailing the safe speed from the table inFIG. 32 a may be reduced by 10%. If the weather is snowing, the safespeed determined from the table in FIG. 32 a may be reduced by 20%. Ifthe weather is foggy, smoky or smoggy the safe speed determined from thetable in FIG. 32 a may be reduced by 30%.

FIG. 32 b depicts a flowchart for determining the effect of speed onliability in a vehicle accident. Step 3205 shows that if the answer todecision point 3203 is accident type 14, the factor may not beapplicable. For any other accident type, decision point 3207 may askwhich party is under consideration. If the party is the tortfeasor, thendecision point 3211 may ask if the tortfeasor was going faster than theestimated maximum safe speed. If the answer is yes, then step 3213 mayrefer to the table in FIG. 32 c to calculate the effect on theliability. If the tortfeasor was not going faster than the maximum safespeed, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown in step 3215.

If the party being considered at decision point 3207 is the other party,then decision point 3209 may ask if the accident type is 1. If theaccident type is not 1, then decision point 3219 may ask if the otherparty was going faster than the estimated maximum safe speed. If theanswer is yes, then step 3221 may refer to the table in FIG. 32 c tocalculate the effect on the liability. If the party was not going fasterthan the maximum safe speed, then step 3223 indicates that the factormay not be applicable.

However, if the accident type is 1 at decision point 3209, decisionpoint 3217 may ask if the other party was stopped at a yielding trafficcontrol. If the answer is yes, then step 3225 indicates that the factormay not be applicable. If the answer is no, then decision point 3227 mayask if the other party was traveling at less than a minimum legal speedfor the roadway. In some embodiments, decision point 3227 may ask if theother party was traveling at less than a prevailing speed on theroadway. If the other party was not traveling at less than the minimumlegal speed, then step 3232 indicates that the factor may not beapplicable. If the other party was traveling at less than the minimumlegal speed, but not considerably slower, then decision point 3231 mayask if the vehicle's flashers were on. Step 3237 indicates that thefactor may not be applicable if the vehicle's flashers were on. If theflashers were not on, step 3239 indicates that a “low” penalty value maybe assessed against the other party. If the other party was travelingconsiderably slower than the minimum legal speed, then decision point3229 may ask if the vehicle's flashers were on. Step 3233 indicates thatthe factor may not be applicable if the vehicle's flashers were on. Ifthe flashers were not on, step 3235 indicates that a “high” penaltyvalue may be assessed against the other party. In certain embodiments,other considerations may be used in determining the effect on liabilityof the other party traveling at less than the minimum legal speed asdiscussed with reference to FIGS. 31 a and 31 b.

FIG. 32 c may be used to estimate an effect on liability of thecontribution of speed to a vehicle accident. The table of FIG. 32 c maybe used in the same manner described for FIG. 31 c above.

FIG. 33 a is a flowchart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of a sudden stop or swerve to a motorvehicle accident according to one embodiment. As used herein, the term“sudden stop or swerve” generally refers to a rapid deceleration orchange of direction. A sudden stop or swerve may typically be taken toavoid another object such as, but not limited to, an animal, pedestrian,road defect, another vehicle or road debris. FIGS. 33 b-f are flowchartsassociated with FIG. 33 a that estimate the effect on liability of asudden stop or swerve. A sudden stop or swerve factor may be applied tothe tortfeasor for accident types 11, 12, 13, and 16 or to the otherparty for accident type 1.

In FIG. 33 a, decision point 3301 and step 3302 indicate that the factormay not be applicable to combinations other than to the tortfeasor foraccident types 11, 12, 13, or 16 and to the other party for accidenttype 1. If the party and accident type under consideration are one ofthese combinations, then decision point 3303 asks whether there was asudden stop or swerve in the accident. If there was not, then the factormay not be applicable, as shown by step 3304. If there was a sudden stopor swerve then the reason for the sudden stop or swerve may be solicitedat decision point 3305. The reason may include a road defect, debris, apedestrian, another vehicle, or an animal. In addition, FIG. 33 a alsoconsiders the case of a sudden stop or swerve for no apparent reason.

In FIG. 33 a, if the reason is a road defect the flowchart may refer toa road defect flowchart 3380 as depicted in FIG. 33 b. The firstdecision point 3306 in road defect flowchart 3380 may asks if the partyshould have seen the road defect sooner than the party did. If yes, thena “medium” penalty value may be assessed to the party underconsideration as shown by decision point 3307. If the answer to decisionpoint 3306 is no, then decision point 3308 may be reached where it isdetermined whether the party was familiar with the area of the accidentand/or the defect. If the party was familiar with the area of theaccident and/or the defect, then a “medium” penalty value may beassessed to the party, as shown by step 3309. If the party was notfamiliar with the area of the accident and/or the defect at decisionpoint 3308, then decision point 3312 may ask if the sudden stop orswerve was reasonable. If the answer is yes, then an ALV of 0% liabilitymay be assessed to the party at step 3313. In addition, it may be notedin an assessment report that a third party (e.g., a party responsible tomaintain the road or a party that cased the defect) may have contributedto the accident, and may thus bear a portion of the liability. If atdecision point 3312, it is determined that the action was notreasonable, then a “medium” penalty value may be assessed to the partyat step 3314.

In FIG. 33 a, if the reason for the sudden stop or swerve at decisionpoint 3305 is debris, then the flowchart may refer to a debris flowchart3381 as depicted in FIG. 33 c. Decision point 3315 of debris flowchart3381 may ask whether the party should have seen the debris sooner thanthe party did. If not, then decision point 3322 may be reached, whichmay ask if the sudden stop or swerve was reasonable. If the answer todecision point 3315 is yes, then decision point 3316 may determinewhether the debris was dangerous. If the debris was dangerous, thendecision point 3322 may ask if the sudden stop or swerve was reasonable.If the debris was not dangerous, then decision point 3319 may ask if thedebris was moving. If the debris was not moving, then a “medium” penaltyvalue may be assessed against the party. If the debris was moving, thendecision point 3320 may inquire whether the debris was coming towardsthe party. If not, then a talking point may be reached in step 3323. Ifyes, then decision point 3322 may ask if the sudden stop or swerve wasreasonable. At decision point 3322, if it is determined that the actionwas reasonable, then an ALV of 0% may be assessed against the party atstep 3317. In addition, it may be noted in an assessment report that athird party (e.g., a party responsible for the debris) may havecontributed to the accident, and may thus bear a portion of theliability. If at decision point 3322, it is determined that the actionwas not reasonable then a “medium” penalty value may be assessed to theparty at step 3318.

In FIG. 33 a, if the reason for the sudden stop or swerve at decisionpoint 3305 is a pedestrian or other vehicle, then the flowchart mayrefer to a pedestrian or 3rd vehicle flowchart 3382 as depicted in FIG.33 d. It may be determined at decision point 3326 whether the suddenstop and swerve was reasonable. If it was reasonable, then an ALV of 0%may be assessed to the party under consideration, as shown by step 3328.If the sudden stop and swerve at decision point 3326 is not reasonable,then a “medium” penalty value may be assessed to the party as shown bystep 3329.

In FIG. 33 a, if there is no apparent reason for the sudden stop orswerve at decision point 3305, then the flowchart may refer to a noapparent reason flowchart 3383 as depicted in FIG. 33 e. If the actionwas a swerve, then the factor may not be applicable, as shown by step3332. Alternately, in some embodiments, a “medium” penalty value may beassessed if the action was a swerve. If the action was a sudden stop,decision point 3333 may ask if the accident occurred on city streets. Ifyes, a “medium” penalty value may be assessed to the party as shown bystep 3334. If not, a “high” penalty value may be assessed to the partyas shown by step 3335.

In FIG. 33 a, if the reason for the sudden stop or swerve at decisionpoint 3305 is an animal, then the flowchart may refer to an animalflowchart 3384 as depicted in FIG. 33 f. It may be determined atdecision point 3336 if the party should have seen the animal sooner. Ifnot, then decision point 3338 may be reached which may ask if the suddenstop or swerve was reasonable. If the answer to decision point 3336 isyes, then decision point 3337 may ask if the situation was dangerous. Ifit is determined that the situation may have been dangerous, then atalking point may be reached at step 3340. If the situation was notdangerous, then decision point 3339 may ask if the animal was moving. Ifthe animal was not moving, then decision point 3347 may ask if theanimal was domestic as shown by decision point 3347. If the animal wasdomestic, then a “medium” penalty value may be assessed against theparty. Additionally, it may be noted in an assessment report that athird party (e.g., the animal's owner) may bear a portion of theliability. If the animal was not domestic, then a “medium” penalty valuemay be assessed against the party.

If the animal was moving, in answer to decision point 3339, decisionpoint 3341 may ask if the animal was coming towards the party. If theanimal was not, then a talking point may be reached, as shown by step3344. If the animal was coming towards the party, then decision point3345 may determine if the animal was domestic. If the animal was notdomestic, decision point 3343 may determine if the action wasreasonable. If it is determined that the action was reasonable then anALV of 0% may be assessed against the party at step 3352. If at decisionpoint 3343, it is determined that the action was not reasonable then a“medium” penalty value may be assessed to the party at step 3354. If atdecision point 3345 it is determined that the animal was domestic,decision point 3338 may determine if the sudden stop or swerve wasreasonable. If it is determined that the action was reasonable, an ALVof 0% may be assessed against the party at step 3356. In addition, itmay be noted in an assessment report that a third party (e.g., theanimal's owner) may have contributed to the accident, and may thus beara portion of the liability. If at decision point 3338, it is determinedthat the action was not reasonable then a “medium” penalty value may beassessed to the party at step 3358.

FIG. 34 is a flowchart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of all taillights or brake lights beingoff when they should have been on to a motor vehicle accident accordingto one embodiment. The factor may apply to accidents where alltaillights or brake lights on a vehicle were off when they should havebeen on and contributed to the accident.

In FIG. 34, decision point 3401 and step 3403 indicate that the factormay not be applicable for combinations other than to the tortfeasor foraccident types 9 or 10 and to the other party for accident type 1. Ineach case, the visibility should be known. The next step for one ofthose combinations is decision point 3405, which may ask if the partywas braking when the accident occurred. If the party was not braking,then decision point 3409 may ask the visibility at the accident scene.Determination of the visibility is discussed with regard to FIG. 35.Step 3419 indicates that the factor may not be applicable if thevisibility is good. If the visibility is poor, then decision point 3421may ask if the tail lights were on. In an embodiment, tail lights may beconsidered to be on if at least one tail light is on. Step 3433indicates that the factor may not be applicable if the tail lights wereon.

However, if tail lights were not on, decision point 3435 may ask whetherit was dark without street lights. If the answer is yes to decisionpoint 3435, a “medium” penalty value may be assessed against the partywith the tail lights off at step 3445. Step 3447 indicates that if theanswer to decision point 3435 is no, then a “low” penalty value may beassessed against the party with the tail lights off.

If the answer to decision point 3405 is yes, then decision point 3407may ask whether brake lights were on. In an embodiment, brake lights maybe considered on if at least one brake light was on. In otherembodiments, brake lights may be considered to be on if two or morebrake lights were on. Step 3411 indicates that the factor may not beapplicable if brake lights were on. If brake lights were not on,decision point 3413 inquires into the visibility at the accident scene.If visibility was good, then a “low” penalty value may be assessed tothe party with brake lights off, as shown by step 3415. If thevisibility was poor, then decision point 3417 may ask if the tail lightswere on. If the tail lights were on, then, according to step 3429, a“low” penalty value may be assessed to the party with the brake lightsoff. However, if the tail lights were not on then decision point 3431may be reached. The steps 3438 and 3440 are identical to steps 3445 and3447 previously described.

FIG. 35 is a flowchart for estimating the effect of a factor thataccounts for the contribution of visibility to a motor vehicle accidentaccording to one embodiment. The visibility factor may be applied to thetortfeasor and/or other party for any accident type. As used herein, theterm “visibility” is generally defined as a combination of the weatherand the lighting that adversely affects ability to see other vehicles,traffic controls, etc. In some embodiments, visibility may not be anadjusting or talking point factor in and of itself. It may be mentionedas a comment to the accident. Visibility may be an input to otherfactors. In some embodiments, weather may be a separate flowchart thatmay be used as an input to other factors. Lighting may include, but isnot limited to, day, dawn, dusk, night with street lights, and nightwithout lights. Weather may include, but is not limited to, clear,cloudy, raining, sleet/hail/freezing rain, snow, fog/smoke/smog/dust,and fog with rain.

FIG. 35 is a flowchart that estimates the effect of visibility on theliability. The first step in FIG. 35 is decision point 3501 that may askthe lighting conditions at the accident scene. If the lighting wasdaytime, then decision point 3503 may determine the weather conditions.If the weather is clear/cloudy as shown by step 3517, then the factormay not be applicable. Alternatively, if the weather is “all others”(i.e., other than clear or cloudy) as shown by step 3519, the visibilitymay be a talking point. As input into another flowchart, steps 3519 and3513 may be considered poor visibility and steps 3517 and 3511 may beconsidered good visibility.

Similarly, the adverse weather may be determined at decision point 3505if the answer to decision point 3501 is “other.” If the answer todecision point 3505 is “clear/cloudy,” then visibility may be a talkingpoint in reference to lighting as shown by step 3511. If the answer todecision point 3505 is “all other,” then visibility may be a talkingpoint in reference to weather and lighting as shown by step 3513.

FIG. 36 depicts an embodiment of a flowchart and table for noting in anassessment report the effect of disobeyed signs or markings. In FIG. 36,decision point 3601 may determine if one or more signs or markings weredisobeyed. If at decision point 3601, it is determined that no signs ormarkings were disobeyed, the factor may not be applicable as shown atstep 3605. If signs or markings were disobeyed, the method may refer totable 3607 at step 3603.

Table 3607 may provide a list of potential signs and markings that mayhave been disobeyed in column 3609. If a sign or marking was disobeyed,a note may be added to an assessment report indicating the sign ormarking disobeyed and whether a citation resulted. If no citation wasissued, then a note from violation column 3613 corresponding to the signor marking disobeyed may be added to the assessment report. If acitation was issued then a note from citation column 3615 correspondingto the sign or marking disobeyed may be added to the assessment reportas discussed with reference to FIG. 55.

FIG. 37 is an illustration of how a factor influence may be used toadjust the effect of factors on the liability according to oneembodiment. The factor influence may determine the effect the sum of theeffects on liability resulting from factors may have on the baseliability. As shown in FIG. 37, the factor influence may have fourlevels: none (no adjustment), normal, low, and high. A “high” factorinfluence may allow factors to modify the liability significantly. A“low” factor influence may reduce the influence of the factors belowthat determined by the “normal” factor influence. Each factor influencelevel may have a percentage value associated with it, for example,normal=100%, low=50%, and high=150%. Therefore, a “low” factor influencemay cut in half the summation of all factor adjustments. In someembodiments, regardless of the factor influence setting, the lower andupper bounds of the liability may still constrain the final liabilityrange.

Once a method is used to estimate the effect of the factors on the baseliability, liability values (L_(A) and L_(B)) for each vehicle may becalculated by combining the contribution for each vehicle with itscorresponding base liability. Since the sum of the calculatedliabilities may be greater than 100%, it may be necessary to calculatenormalized liabilities from adjusted liabilities:L_(AN)=L_(A)/(L_(AN)+L_(A)) and L_(BN)=100%−LAN. If L_(AN) is greaterthan the upper bound, the final liability may be set equal to the upperbound. If LAN is less than the lower bound of the liability, the finalliability may be set equal to the lower bound.

Alternatively, the effect of the factors on liability may be combinedwith the base liability according to a debit-credit method. A portion ofthe effect to liability of one vehicle may be added to that party'sliability and the remainder may be subtracted from the other party'sliability. For example, one half may be added to one party's liabilityand one half subtracted from the other party's liability.

In an embodiment, the liability may be expressed as a range rather thana single value. The range may be generated by a range radius. As usedherein, the term “range radius” generally refers to a percentage valuethat may be added and subtracted from the final liability to create therange: L_(AN)±range radius. The range radius may be adjustable by theuser and may be applied to all claims.

In one embodiment, a user may specify a range snap-to value. As usedherein, the term “range snap-to” value generally refers to a multiple toround up or down to for the range. For example, the calculated liabilitymay be 82±5%. If the range snap-to value is 5 percent, the liability maybe adjusted to 80±5%.

The liability range may be adjusted if any part of it falls outside ofthe upper and lower bounds of liability. In one embodiment, theliability range may be shifted. If the maximum of the liability range isgreater than the upper bound of liability, the maximum of the liabilityrange may be shifted to the upper bound of liability. The minimum of therange may be shifted to the lower bound of liability if the liabilityrange is larger than the upper bound to lower bound range. If theliability range is less than the upper bound to lower bound range, theminimum of the liability range may be shifted to the upper bound minustwice the range radius.

Similarly, if the minimum of the liability range is less than the lowerbound of liability, the minimum of the liability range may be shifted tothe lower bound of liability. The maximum of the range may be shifted tothe upper bound of liability if the liability range is larger than theupper bound to lower bound range. If the liability range is less thanthe upper bound to lower bound range, the maximum of the liability rangemay be shifted to the lower bound plus the twice the range radius.

Alternatively, rather than shifting, the liability range may betruncated to keep as much of the original liability range as possible.If the maximum of the liability range is greater than the upper bound,the maximum of the range may be the upper bound of liability. If theminimum of the range is less than the upper bound, the minimum of therange may be the lower bound of liability.

In one embodiment, a knowledge acquisition utility may be provided to auser to allow the user to configure information associated with impactgroups for roadway configuration/accident type combinations. Forexample, sets of impact groups associated with each roadwayconfiguration and accident type may be configured. Further, each impactgroup may have one or more estimates of base liability associated withit. For example, each impact group in a roadway configuration andaccident type combination may have a base liability, an upper range ofliability, and a lower range of liability for each party associated withit. FIG. 38 is a screen shot of a window that may be used for selectinga roadway configuration/accident type combination according to oneembodiment. As shown and discussed in reference to FIG. 8 b, a givenroadway configuration/accident combination may be associated with aplurality of impact groups where an impact group may be a collection ofpairs of impact points. Impact points may be defined by the impact pointdiagram in FIG. 8 a. Each of the pairs of impact points in the impactgroup may have the same base liability and lower and upper bounds ofliability. A claims organization may designate a user such as anexperienced claims adjusters to use the knowledge acquisition utility todetermine the number of impact groups for each roadwayconfiguration/accident type combination and the impact point pairs ineach impact group.

A claims organization may further employ a user (e.g., an experiencedclaims adjusters) to assign base liabilities and lower and upper boundsof liability to each of the impact groups derived with the aid of theknowledge acquisition utility. As used herein, the term “knowledgeacquisition utility” generally refers to an application that allows aclaims organization to configure a system for estimating liability in anaccident to meet the claims organizations needs. For example, theknowledge acquisition utility may allow the claims organization to setbase liability, lower bound of liability and upper bound of liabilityfor each impact group. The knowledge acquisition utility may also allowthe claims organization to configure a numerical value associated withpenalty factors. For example, a claims organization may use theknowledge acquisition utility to set a “low” penalty value equal to a10% adjustment in liability. Likewise, a “medium” penalty value may beset at 20% and a “high” penalty value set at 30%. In variousembodiments, other determinants of liability may also be configurable bythe claims organization using the knowledge acquisition utility,including, but not limited to, situational weights associated withvarious factors, range radii, range snap-tos, etc.

In an embodiment, a knowledge acquisition utility may be used inconjunction with a tuning utility. A tuning utility may include aknowledge acquisition utility. In an embodiment of a tuning utility, theuser may select a roadway configuration and accident type combination toedit from a window as described with reference FIGS. 38 and 39. The usermay input base liabilities, lower, and upper bounds of liability foreach of the impact groups corresponding to the roadwayconfiguration/accident type combination. After the base liabilities areinput, the user may run one or more pre-configured test scenarios builtinto the tuning utility. The user may then analyze the results andrefine the base liabilities. The procedure may be repeated until theuser is satisfied with the results produced by the liability estimationsystem. This process of entering estimates of liability or effect onliability, then testing those estimates by use or one or morepre-configured test scenarios is referred to herein as “tuning.” Theuser may enter base liability information for all other roadwayconfiguration and accident type combinations, run test scenarios,analyze output, refine tuning parameters, and repeat until satisfied.Likewise, the user may enter factor tuning information, as describedwith reference to FIG. 40, test each factor individually untilsatisfied, test combinations of factors, and adjust tuning parameters asnecessary.

The window depicted in FIG. 38 contains a matrix 3800 of roadwayconfigurations, R, and accident types, A. Diagrams representing roadwayconfigurations are illustrated in FIG. 5. Diagrams representing accidenttypes are illustrated in FIG. 4.

The elements of the matrix labeled with a “--” are combinations whichmay not be considered because the particular roadway configuration andaccident type combination may be considered implausible. In theembodiment depicted, the implausible combinations are a subset of thecombinations labeled with an “N” in FIG. 6. In some embodiments, allroadway configuration and accident type combinations may be available tothe claims organization. In such embodiments, the claims organizationmay utilize the knowledge acquisition utility to designate one or morecombinations implausible.

To configure a particular roadway configuration and accident typecombination, a user may select the desired values of A and R from menus3801 and 3803, respectively. Selecting Edit push-button 3805 may open anedit combination window (as depicted in FIG. 39), which may allow theuser to edit impact groups for a given roadway configuration andaccident type combination. Once a combination has been selected andconfigured, an indicator adjacent to combination 3807 may indicate thatthe combination has been configured. For example, a checkbox may beassociated with each combination. In such embodiment, an “X” may appearin the check box to designate that a combination has been configured.

FIG. 39 is a screen shot of edit combination window 3925 from aknowledge acquisition utility according to one embodiment. The windowmay display a graphic representation of selected roadway configuration3927 and accident type 3929. For example, in FIG. 39 the accident typeshown is type 2, as shown in FIG. 4, and the roadway configuration is B,as shown in FIG. 5. A graphic representation of impact point diagram3931 (as shown in FIG. 8 a) may also be displayed. The window maydisplay a text description of the accident type and roadwayconfiguration combination 3933. For example, as depicted in FIG. 39, thetext description may be, “Left Turn Crossing Traffic on a Four WayIntersection.”

The user may also be provided with free-form text entry area 3935 toprovide comments directed to the combination. For example, a claimsorganization may desire a particular comment to be displayed to a userentering claims information containing the combination.

Edit combination window 3925 may also include a plurality of impactgroup text areas 3937 configured to display impact groups and associatedimpact pairs. Associated with each impact group text area may be impactgroup edit area 3939. Impact group edit area 3939 may allow the user toenter one or more impact pairs to be associated with the impact group.

Also associated with each impact group text area 3937 may be liabilityinput text area 3940. Liability input text area 3940 may include baseliability field 3942, minimum liability field 3941, and maximumliability field 3943 associated with an accident where vehicle A has theright of way and base liability field 3945, minimum liability field3944, and maximum liability field 3946 associated with an accident wherevehicle B has the right of way. In an embodiment, liability input textarea 3940 may allow the user to input estimates of liability for onlyone vehicle in the accident. For example, the liability input text areamay be related to the liability of vehicle A only. In alternateembodiments, liability input text area 3940 may allow the user to inputliability estimates for each vehicle. In either embodiment, liabilityinput text area 3940 may display an estimate associated with a secondvehicle. The liability estimate for the second vehicle may be determinedfrom the liability estimates provided for the first vehicle on theassumption that liability must total to 100% between the two vehicles.

In an embodiment, the user may edit factors associated with the roadwayconfiguration and accident type combination by selecting Factor button3947 in editing combination window 3925. Selecting Factor button 3947may bring up situational weight configuration window 3950, as depictedin FIG. 40.

FIG. 40 is a screen shot of situational weight configuration window 4001according to one embodiment. Situational weight configuration window4001 may be used to configure situational weights associated with one ormore factors for a given roadway configuration and accident typecombination. The situational weights may be used to adjust the magnitudeof the effect of the factors on liability, as described with referenceto FIG. 9 a.

Situational weight configuration window 4001 may include a number ofcolumns. First vehicle column 4003 (e.g., column “A”) may include rowsof data associated with a first vehicle (e.g., vehicle “A”). Secondvehicle column 4007 (e.g., column “B”) may include rows of dataassociated with a second vehicle (e.g., vehicle “B”). Factors column4005 may include rows containing text descriptions of various factors. Auser may select a situational weighting associated with each vehicle foreach factor listed in factors column 4005. For example, in row 4009, theuser has selected a “low” situational weight for vehicle A and a “high”situational weight for vehicle B for the speed factor.

In some embodiments, characteristics other than base liabilities, andfactors may be adjusted by a knowledge acquisition utility. Thesecharacteristics include, but are not limited to, factor rankings,penalty values, range radii, range snap-tos, and absolute liabilityvalues. Alternatively, penalty values may not be tunable since they maybe estimated by a method as illustrated in the flowcharts in FIGS. 10 ato 36.

FIG. 41 is a screen shot of impact point display window 4100 of aknowledge acquisition utility for displaying impact point pairs for aroadway configuration and accident type combination according to oneembodiment. Impact point display window 4100 may provide a mechanism fordisplaying to the user of a knowledge acquisition utility what impactpoint combinations make up the impact group that is being considered bythe user. Impact point display window 4100 along with the roadwayconfiguration and accident type combination may provide a context withinwhich to make decisions about base liability.

Impact point display window 4100 displays two vehicles with labeledimpact points that belong to a given impact group. When the user selectsan impact point on a first vehicle, the selected impact point andcorresponding impact points on a second vehicle may be highlighted. Theselected impact point on the first vehicle and the highlighted impactpoints on the second vehicle are pairs of impact points in the impactgroup. For example, in impact point display window 4100, impact point(801) on the vehicle on the left is selected resulting in impact points(807), (808), and (809) being highlighted on the vehicle on the right.Therefore, (801,807), (801,808), and (801,809) are pairs of impactpoints.

FIG. 42 illustrates a screen shot of Claim Data window 4200. Claim datawindow 4200 may be divided into a number of frames. Control frame 4201may provide access to basic controls for the application. For examplestandard pull down menus may provide access to file, edit, tool and helpmenus as are commonly used. Additionally, controls frame 4201 mayinclude a number of frame selection buttons (e.g., buttons 4203, 4205,4207, 4209, 4211, and 4213). Each frame selection button may cause adata display frame 4250 to display different data. For example,selecting “ROW” frame selection button 4205 may cause data regardingright of way in a vehicle accident to be displayed. Claim data window4200 may also include claim data frame 4225. Claim data frame 4225 mayinclude basic claim data associated. In some embodiments, claim dataframe 4225 may continuously display the basic claim data while datadisplay frame 4250 allows other data related to the accident to beentered. Accessories frame 4275 may allow the user to select a number oftools that may be useful to the user as claim data is being entered.Legal reference button 4277 may allow the user to access informationrelated to the laws of a jurisdiction in which the accident took place.Calculator button 4279 may allow the user to access a calculatorfeature. Comments button 4281 may allow the user to access a free-formtext entry area in which comments may be entered. Show details button4283 may allow the user to access a summary report screen that displaysdetails related to the accident.

Claim data frame 4225 may contain data entry fields including, but notlimited to, a claim number, a policy number, an accident location, whoreported the accident, whether police where called, what branch of thepolice was called, whether there were any injuries, whether there werefatalities, what state the accident took place, the date of theaccident, what time the accident took place, a policy start date, apolicy end date, who the accident was reported to, and a description ofthe loss due to the accident. In an embodiment, a system may access aclaims organization's database to retrieve information related to apolicy or an insured party based on a policy number. For example, thepolicy start and end dates may be automatically entered by the systembased on information in the claims organization's database.

Vehicles frame 4300, as depicted in FIG. 43, depicts a frame forentering data related to the vehicles involved in the accident accordingto one embodiment. Vehicles frame 4300 may appear in data display frame4250 if the user selects “Basic” frame selection button 4203 and vehicleinformation frame tab 4303. Other options available to the user when“Basic” frame selection button 4203 is selected may include partyinformation frame tab 4301 and additional information frame tab 4305.The user may enter the number of vehicles involved in the accident innumber field 4307. The user may enter the types of each vehicle in typefields 4309. In an embodiment, the number of type fields provided maycorrespond to the number of vehicles entered into vehicles field 4307.In some embodiments, two type fields 4309 may be provided by default. Insuch embodiments, a first type field may correspond to the insuredparty's vehicle type, and a second type field may correspond to theclaimant party's vehicle type. In such embodiments, additional typefields may be provided if more than two vehicles were involved in theaccident. Vehicle types may include, but are not limited to, anautomobile, a light truck, and another type.

FIG. 44 is a screen shot of additional information screen 4400.Additional information screen 4400 may be displayed when AdditionalInformation tab 4305 is selected. Additional information screen 4400 mayallow the user to enter a description of the accident in a free-formtext entry box.

FIG. 45 illustrates a screen shot of party information frame 4500. Partyinformation frame 4500 may be displayed in data display frame 4250 whenParty Information tab 4301 is selected. The user may be prompted toselect a party involved in the accident from the menu that may include:Insured, Claimant, or Witness. The user may be presented with inputfields related to identifying information specific to the partyselected. For example, the user may enter the selected party's name,address, city, zip code, phone number, gender, and state into entryfields. The user may enter a description of the accident made by theparty into a free-form text entry box.

FIG. 46 depicts an embodiment of a legal reference screen. The legalreference screen may be accessed by selection of legal reference button4277 in accessories frame 4275. The legal reference screen may providethe user with legal information for a jurisdiction in which the accidentoccurred. The legal information may be pertinent to determiningliability in the accident. In an embodiment, the legal referenceinformation may be accessed from a subscription legal reference service,such as the Westlaw legal information service, available from West Groupof St. Paul, Minn. For example, laws pertaining to proportionateresponsibility for the jurisdiction may be displayed. The jurisdictionmay be determined by the state selected in claim data frame 4225.

FIG. 47 illustrates an embodiment of right of way data frame 4701 thatmay be displayed if a user selects right of way button 4205 in controlsframe 4201 and “Accident/Roadway” tab 4703. Based on data provided inright of way frame 4701, the system may determine a right of way in anaccident by a method described with reference to FIGS. 7 a and 7 b. Insome embodiments, a right of way data frame may allow a user to make amanual determination of right of way. Accident/Roadway tab 4703 maypresent a user with a list of vehicles involved in accident 4705 andselection frames for accident type 4707 and roadway configuration 4709.Accident type frame 4707 may display a graphical representation of acurrently selected accident type. Roadway configuration frame 4709 maydisplay a graphical representation of a currently selected roadwayconfiguration. A user may select a different accident type or roadwayconfiguration by using selection buttons 4711 and 4713, respectively.

FIG. 48 illustrates an embodiment of traffic controls data frame 4801that may be displayed if a user selects right of way button 4205 incontrols frame 4201 and “Traffic Controls” tab 4803. Using trafficcontrols data frame 4801, the user may enter information regarding oneor more traffic controls that may have been present at the scene of anaccident. The user may indicate a primary and a secondary trafficcontrol in “primary traffic control” field 4805 and “secondary trafficcontrol” field 4807, respectively. The user may also indicate if atraffic control was disobeyed in field 4809. The user may also indicateif a traffic control was partially obscured in field 4811. The user mayindicate if a traffic control was completely obstructed or missing infield 4813. The user may indicate if an intersection appeareduncontrolled at the time of the accident in field 4815. Informationprovided in fields 4809, 4811, 4813, and 4815 may be used to determinethe effect of a missing or defective traffic control on liability on theaccident.

FIG. 49 illustrates an embodiment of impact points data frame 4901 thatmay be displayed if a user selects right of way button 4205 in controlsframe 4201 and “Impact Points” tab 4903. Using impact points frame 4901,the user may enter information regarding impact points for each vehiclein the accident. In an embodiment, impact points data frame 4901 maypresent the user with graphical representations of the vehiclesinvolved, referenced by numerals 4905 and 4907. In such embodiments, theuser may be able to select the impact points on the graphicalrepresentation.

FIG. 50 illustrates an embodiment of discords report frame 5001 that maybe displayed if a user selects right of way button 4205 in controlsframe 4201 and “Discords” tab 5003. As a user selects informationdescribing an accident, two or more pieces of information may describean implausible circumstance. For example, an accident type of head onmay be selected with a roadway configuration of merging from the left.This accident type and roadway configuration may be unlikely to occur.Discord report frame 5001 may display a report indicating to the userthat an unlikely combination has been selected. This may allow the userto change one or more selections, or to proceed to a manual assessmentof the accident using the existing selections.

FIG. 51 illustrates an embodiment of factors input frame 5101 that maybe displayed if a user selects gather 4207 in controls frame 4201.Factors input frame 5101 may provide input area 5105 for each vehicleinvolved in the accident. For example, as depicted in FIG. 51, factorsinput frame 5101 has an input area for a claimant and an insured. Theclaimant input area may be accessed by selecting claimant tab 5103. Eachinput area 5105 may include questions column 5107, which may listquestions to be asked during an accident investigation. Alternately, insome embodiments, questions column 5107 may provide a column of inputfields in which an adjuster may enter questions that were asked duringthe accident investigation. Some embodiments may include both an area toinput adjuster originated question and a list of system promptedquestions.

Questions asked may pertain to individual factors or groups of factors.Factors category selection area 5104 may allow the user to select anindividual factor or a category of factors for which information may beinput. For example, by selecting a visibility factor category fromfactor category selection area 5104, the user may be provided a list ofquestions related to the visibility factor as described with regard toFIG.

Factors input area 5101 may also include one or more versions columnsfor entering responses to questions provided by various parties. Forexample, insured version column 5109 and claimant version column 5111are depicted in FIG. 51. If other parties provide answers to one or morequestions, additional version columns may be generated by selecting addversion button 5113. Alternately, a version column may be deleted by useof delete version button 5115. Version columns may be used to enterresponses provided by a party regarding the questions in questionscolumn 5107.

FIG. 52 depicts an embodiment of conflict identification frame 5201according to one embodiment. Conflict identification frame 5201 mayassist an adjuster in identifying two or more answers from witnessesthat appear to be in conflict with one another. The assessment ofliability in a motor vehicle accident may involve analysis of multiplestatements of the description of an accident. In one embodiment, theconsistency between different witness statements may be assessed. Thestatements may be from the drivers or passengers of vehicles involved,bystanders and/or other drivers not involved in the accident. In someinstances, statements provided by these various witnesses may not agreeon all of the details of the accident. For example, details that may beimportant in assessing liability may include, but are not limited to,speed of the vehicles, whether brakes were applied, whether signalingwas improper or nonexistent, whether a vehicle yielded, the roadcondition, the road character, road defects, whether a traffic controlwas defective, visibility, whether a driver was wearing requiredcorrective lenses, distance between the vehicle before the accident,whether headlights were off, the presence of an animal/pedestrian/othervehicle, whether a vehicle made a sudden stop or swerve, whethertaillight or brake lights were off, whether a vehicle undertook unsafebacking, whether there was failure to take evasive action, whether avehicle had high beams on, and whether a lane change was improper.

The system may compare answers given by each witness to variousquestions to determine if inconsistencies exist. In an embodiment,inconsistencies may be identified even if witnesses were not asked thesame questions. For example, the system may flag an inconsistency if adriver answers no when asked, “Did you consume any alcohol prior to theaccident?” but a witness answers yes when asked, “Did the drive of thevehicle seem to be impaired?” Claims adjusters may use details that aredescribed inconsistently for informational purposes. The system may listinconsistencies identified in tabular form in conflict identificationframe 5201. Details with inconsistent versions may be noted in thetabulation of results. For example, question column 5203 may list ageneral question having inconsistent responses. Continuing the previousexample regarding alcohol, question column 5203 may contain thequestion, “Did the alcohol contribute to the accident?” Regarding thegeneral question in column 5203, source column 5205 may list each sourcethat provided an answer regarding the question. Response column 5207 maylist responses associated with each source. Conflict identificationframe 5201 may further provide the user with adjuster selection field5209. Adjuster selection field 5209 may allow the user to select aresponse that the adjuster desires to designate as accurate. In otherembodiments, the system may identify a most likely version of theaccident. The most likely version may correspond to the version with themost responses that are consistent across all of the witnesses. Forexample, if 5 witnesses were asked about a particular detail and threeprovided consistent answers, the system may flag these answers as themost likely version of the accident.

FIG. 53 depicts an embodiment of review frame 5301. After adetermination of a most likely version of the accident has been made,the user may be provided with review frame 5301 to review the responsesretained as the most likely version of the accident. The user may selecta category of factors to review from a list of categories of factors5303. Questions applicable to the selected category of factors may bedisplayed in questions column 5305. Answers from the determined mostlikely version of the accident may be displayed in answers columns 5307and 5309.

In certain circumstances, the system may not be able to determine anaccurate estimate of liability. For example, highly unusualcircumstances of the accident may inhibit accurate assessment by thesystem. In such cases, manual assessment input screen 5401 may beprovided, as depicted in FIG. 54. Manual assessment input screen 5401may include insured liability field 5403 and claimant liability field5405. Additionally, manual assessment input screen 5401 may includecomments field 5407, where the user may provide comments regarding theneed for the manual assessment and/or circumstances related to theaccident.

FIG. 55 depicts Consultation Report frame 5501 according to oneembodiment. Consultation Report frame 5501 may include text box 5502 fordisplaying an Assessment Summary report. The Assessment Summary reportmay include a summary of data gathered and an assessment of liability.For example, the Assessment summary report may include, but is notlimited to, the Claim Number, the minimum and maximum percentage ofliability, the accident type, the roadway configuration, commentsregarding one or more factors, proximate cause, accident date, whetherthe accident involved injuries, whether the police were called, theaccident location, accident description, who the accident was reportedby and reported to, jurisdiction, relevant traffic laws of thejurisdiction, identity of the claims adjuster that addressed the claim,and vehicle information for each vehicle. Vehicle information mayinclude the Vehicle Identification Number (“VIN”), make, model, year,impact point, vehicle type, right of way, speed, factors that apply tothe vehicle, and party who was driving the vehicle.

The user may indicate whether the assessment is complete or incompleteby using Assessment Status field 5503. The user may indicate whether theclaim has settled using Settled field 5505. A settlement date may beentered in Settlement Date field 5511.

In an embodiment, notes may be added to an Assessment Summary reportdepending on the determination reached for each factor. With referenceto FIGS. 10 a to 36, each terminus of each factor may have a reportmessage code associated with it. Report message codes listed in anassessment report may aid the adjuster in explaining the assessmentand/or in negotiating a settlement. It may be especially helpful to theadjuster to have talking points reached in the assessment listed in theassessment report.

In an embodiment, other reports may be available to a user as well. Forexample, a user may be able to configure ad hoc reports related tohistorical accidents. The system may also provide one or morepre-configured reports. For example, a number of administrative orbusiness reports may be available. Such reports may include, but are notlimited to, reports pertaining to previous settlements reached,accidents claimed in a particular region or under a particular policy,and accidents associated with various categories of drivers or vehicles.

In another embodiment, a graphical user interface similar to thatillustrated in FIGS. 42 to 54 may be combined with accidentreconstruction methodology to assess the credibility of details inwitness accident descriptions. Accident reconstruction software may beapplied to determine details relating to speed, time, and distance ofthe vehicles involved in the accident. Such details may be inferred byaccident reconstruction software from physical measurements. Forexample, the impact speed may be inferred from physical damage tovehicles. The results of the accident reconstruction software may thenbe compared to the description of the corresponding detail in thewitness statements. The credibility of a witness statement may then beevaluated according to its consistency with the results of the accidentreconstruction software.

Accident reconstruction software may employ accident reconstructionmethods that may be dependent on a number of variables. Variables may berelated to the preservation of the accident evidence, limitations inavailable specifications, and choice of accident reconstructiontechniques. Accident reconstruction techniques may include damage-basedand trajectory analysis techniques.

Variables related to accident evidence include the facts of theparticular case, which may be unique for the case. Generally, access tosome facts may not be under the direct control of an accidentreconstructionist, however, the reconstructionist may requestdocumentation and/or memorialization of these facts. The facts of a casemay form the basis for the reconstruction. Facts may be preserved ormemorialized in photos or measurements by police or other investigatorsat the time of the accident.

Accident evidence may include positions of rest of vehicles in theaccident (e.g., where they stop), tire marks, roadway markings, damageto vehicles, and damage to property. The memorialization of these itemsmay vary widely between cases. First, accident investigators (e.g.,police on the scene of the accident) may identify the important aspectsof the accident required to permit a detailed reconstruction. Thedetermination of the requirements of a reconstruction may be incidentalto other activities, for example, life-saving or the restoration of asafe environment to the accident site. An investigator may try topreserve as much of the evidence as possible. In this initial phase ofmemorialization, photography, paint markings of vehicles' positions ofrest, impact marking, and debris may be used to preserve evidence. Itmay be advantageous to photograph items of evidence before putting paintmarks on. Techniques for measuring various items at the scene mayinclude sight estimates, pacing, tape measurements, and surveying typeequipment. The variation in the accuracy of these techniques may detractfrom the ultimate accuracy of the speed estimates.

The vehicle damage data may not necessarily be preserved at the scene.Typically, vehicle damage may remain unchanged for weeks and/or years ata separate location while either waiting for repair or disposal.

Measurement of the extent of vehicle damage may be subject to somevariation. However, typically, the variation of results of a damage-databased reconstruction may mainly be due to differences in thereconstruction and interpretation techniques rather than to themeasurement devices used.

Measurements and vehicle specifications may be used as inputs to theequation that permit application of various physical laws to theaccident reconstruction. Specifications may include the mass of thevehicles. Measurements may include the geometry of the collision.Determining the geometry of the collision may require the dimensions ofthe vehicles as inputs.

Additional specifications that may be used in a reconstruction mayinclude roadway friction coefficients, wheel drag, and wheel steer,which may be used primarily for trajectory-based analysis. The frictioncoefficient, drag, and steer on the vehicle as it travels from impact torest may be used to approximate the kinetic energy dissipated in atrajectory-based analysis.

The two general techniques for accident reconstruction includedamage-based and trajectory-based methods. Damage-based methodstypically reconstruct accidents based on damage to vehicles withoutapplying accident scene data. Damage-based only reconstructiontechniques generally assume a virtual linear relationship between theimpact speed changes versus residual or static crush. The relationshipis virtual since it involves equating the crush energy dissipated duringthe dynamic crushing of the vehicles to the residual or static crush.Damage-based reconstruction techniques may use a single full-scale crashtest data point for a given vehicle combined with an assumptionregarding a “no-damage” intercept to calculate custom-fittedcoefficients for use in individual case reconstructions. Such anassumption may generally be recognized as a crude first-approximationprocedure. Alternatively, some damage-based techniques may use multiplecrash tests on an individual vehicle to create multiple data points fora given vehicle.

A trajectory-based analysis may directly provide estimates of the impactspeed changes in the form of the differences between impact andseparation velocities for each vehicle. The general concept or principleof a trajectory-based reconstruction may be the conservation ofmomentum. The conservation of momentum, which is based on Newton'ssecond and third laws, is that the total momentum of an isolated systemof masses remains constant. The conservation of momentum principle mayserve as the theoretical basis for reconstruction of impact speeds invehicle-to-vehicle collisions. The principal stipulates that the systemmomentum preceding a collision and the system momentum after acollision, for example at separation, are conserved in the absence ofexternal forces. Therefore, if the individual speeds and directions ofmotion for each of the two vehicles in a collision to travel fromseparation to rest can be determined, then the direction and magnitudeof this system momentum may be used to determine the magnitudes anddirections of the velocities that may have existed prior to thecollision, which are the impact velocities. Generally, the magnitude ofexternal forces produced by the tires and other possible sources such asgouging and scraping of vehicle components on the ground during thecollision may be considered small when compared to the magnitude of theforces of the collision. However, it may be necessary to consider suchexternal forces for a comprehensive accident reconstruction.

Analyzing the total energy dissipated as the vehicles travel fromseparation to their positions of rest may be important for preparing acomprehensive trajectory-based reconstruction of a collision. Whenvehicles separate after a collision, they may move to rest positionsagainst resistance forces produced primarily by tire-to-ground friction.Secondary contacts, which may occur with roadside obstacles and/orterrain features, may play significant roles in the dissipation ofkinetic energy and may also produce redirection of the spinouttrajectories.

In another embodiment, a graphical user interface like that illustratedin FIGS. 42 to 54 may be combined with a credibility assessment methodto create a reliable accident description. The details relevant to theaccident such as those described herein may be tested by a credibilityassessment method such as the accident reconstruction software asdescribed herein. The most credible version of the details may then becombined into a single, reliable version of an accident description.

Further modifications and alternative embodiments of various aspects ofthe invention may be apparent to those skilled in the art in view ofthis description. Accordingly, this description is to be construed asillustrative only and is for the purpose of teaching those skilled inthe art the general manner of carrying out the invention. It is to beunderstood that the forms of the invention shown and described hereinare to be taken as the presently preferred embodiments. Elements andmaterials may be substituted for those illustrated and described herein,parts and processes may be reversed, and certain features of theinvention may be utilized independently, all as would be apparent to oneskilled in the art after having the benefit of this description of theinvention. Changes may be made in the elements described herein withoutdeparting from the spirit and scope of the invention as described in thefollowing claims.

What is claimed is:
 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:providing to a computer system one or more sets of impact pointsrelating to a past or theoretical accident, wherein the one or more setsof impact points comprise an impact point for at least one vehicle inthe past or theoretical accident; wherein the computer system isconfigured to access a memory, wherein the memory comprises sets ofcharacteristics for past or theoretical accidents; and the computersystem executing program instructions to implement: the computer systemdetermining, using a knowledge acquisition utility of the computersystem, an estimate liability corresponding to the one or more sets ofimpact points for the past or theoretical accident and providing to thecomputer system the estimate of liability corresponding to the one ormore sets of impact points for the past or theoretical accident; and thecomputer system storing the estimate of liability in the memory inassociation with the one or more sets of impact points and the sets ofcharacteristics for past or theoretical accidents.
 2. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the past or theoretical accident comprises a twovehicle accident.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the estimate ofliability is expressed as a percentage.
 4. The method of claim 1,wherein the estimate of liability is expressed as a range of percentageliability.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the impact point isselected from the group consisting of right front corner, right frontfender, right middle, right rear quarter-panel, right rear corner, rearmiddle, left rear corner, left rear quarter-panel, left middle, leftfront fender, left front corner, and front middle.
 6. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the sets of characteristics for past or theoreticalaccidents comprise a roadway configuration at a location of the vehicleaccident.
 7. The method of claim 6, wherein the roadway configuration isselected from the group consisting of a two or more lane road, a dividedroad with a median that can be crossed, a four-way intersection, aT-angle intersection, a merging of one roadway into another, a curve, aparking lot with two-way traffic, a parking lot with one way traffic, acenter turn lane, and a two or more lane road divided by a physicalbarrier.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the sets of characteristicsfor past or theoretical accidents comprise an accident type of thevehicle accident.
 9. The method of claim 8, wherein the accident type isselected from the group consisting of a rear ender, a left turn crossingtraffic, a left turn across traffic, a left turn entering traffic, aright turn entering traffic, dual turns to same lane, concurrent leftturns, a U-turn, a parked vehicle merging into traffic from right, aparked vehicle merging into traffic from left, a merge from left, amerge from right, concurrent merges to a single lane, a collision with aparked vehicle, a collision while backing, a head on, and a straightcross traffic collision.
 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the sets ofcharacteristics for past or theoretical accidents comprise a roadwayconfiguration at a location of the vehicle accident and an accident typeof the vehicle accident.
 11. The method of claim 10, wherein the roadwayconfiguration is selected from the group consisting of a two or morelane road, a divided road with a median that can be crossed, a four-wayintersection, a T-angle intersection, a merging of one roadway intoanother, a curve, a parking lot with two-way traffic, a parking lot withone way traffic, a center turn lane, and a two or more lane road dividedby a physical barrier.
 12. The method of claim 10, wherein the accidenttype is selected from the group consisting of a rear ender, a left turncrossing traffic, a left turn across traffic, a left turn enteringtraffic, a right turn entering traffic, dual turns to same lane,concurrent left turns, a U-turn, a parked vehicle merging into trafficfrom right, a parked vehicle merging into traffic from left, a mergefrom left, a merge from right, concurrent merges to a single lane, acollision with a parked vehicle, a collision while backing, a head on,and a straight cross traffic collision.
 13. A system, comprising: a CPU;a data memory coupled to the CPU; and a system memory coupled to theCPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store one or morecomputer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein the computerprograms are executable to implement a method for estimating liability,the method comprising: providing one or more sets of impact pointsrelating to a past or theoretical accident, wherein the one or more setsof impact points comprise an impact point for at least one vehicle inthe past or theoretical accident; wherein the data memory comprises setsof characteristics for past or theoretical accidents; a computer systemdetermining, using a knowledge acquisition utility of the computersystem, an estimate liability corresponding to the one or more sets ofimpact points for the past or theoretical accident and providing to thecomputer system the estimate of liability corresponding to the one ormore sets of impact points for the past or theoretical accident; and thecomputer system storing the estimate of liability in the memory inassociation with the one or more sets of impact points and the sets ofcharacteristics for past or theoretical accidents.
 14. A computerreadable storage medium comprising program instructions stored thereon,wherein the program instructions are computer-executable to implement amethod comprising: providing to a computer system one or more sets ofimpact points relating to a past or theoretical accident, wherein theone or more sets of impact points comprise an impact point for at leastone vehicle in the past or theoretical accident; wherein the computersystem is configured to access a memory, wherein the memory comprisessets of characteristics for past or theoretical accidents; the computersystem determining, using a knowledge acquisition utility of thecomputer system, an estimate liability corresponding to the one or moresets of impact points for the past or theoretical accident and providingto the computer system the estimate of liability corresponding to theone or more sets of impact points for the past or theoretical accident;and the computer system storing the estimate of liability in the memoryin association with the one or more sets of impact points and the setsof characteristics for past or theoretical accidents.